AndrewTS

Ah, **** that.

"Kinda like how MTV hasn't shown a video in ten years...... " VH1's a little better, but most of their programming is a bunch of list of X types of videos/songs/moments. I Love the 90's?! That's your big upcoming TV event right now?!

Hair metal isn't gay. A lot of it is pretty freakin' terrible, though. Also, MTV didn't kill music. Pure evil like them will never win. True rock and true metal live on in the rest of the world and in the States, even if MTV wants to ignore it. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to syndicate Queer Eye and Queer As Folk, though. Thing is, how does one market specifically to gays without becoming overly insulting? I expect them to do a sitcom that is a blatant ripoff of All in the Family, but instead of Lionel being simply black, he's a walking gay stereotype as well, and does it just for kicks to get the homophobe neighbor freaked out.

Uh...Albert? ...you make a good case. Although that was never a part of his character, and he's hit on Sable recently and hung around with Trish and seemed to get a kick out of groping Stephanie. Of course, there's the X-Factor phase of his career. I believe Albert would be a great example of what the homosexual community calls a "bear."

I think you're forgetting about someone... Come on, there are others. Savage, Sid, the current Piper anyone?

I want a man's drained corpse personally signed by Torrie and sealed in a glass coffin. Great conversational piece. There's some nasty stuff here. I guess a lot of them were planning to sell some of this junk on Ebay, and Vince decided he wanted a cut of it instead.

Those calling Honky a liar--did you check with any other sources to see whose story was the truth? Anyway--meh, there's plenty more to bitch about Foley for.

I had often wondered...what with the tons of oiled up, tattoed, pierced, uber-manly but ultimately bland wrestlers WWE has been producing, would it kill them to make a gay wrestler that actually is a tough bad ass? Come on, Vince; make it happen!

For me, VI fails because of the gameplay and character. Too damn easy, the ability to superpower your characters, the lack of development for a lot of the characters. Sure, they tried to develop most of them, but were spread a little thin. It has a lot of the flaws of VII, only they aren't as glaring. FFIV, or rather II, was actually around the 5th RPG I'd actually played, incidentally. The 1st was either Earthbound or FFVI. I think Illusion of Gaia was 3rd. I think it sucked. 4th was probably Evermore. I think that sucked too. Even I wouldn't say that. The music is really, really good and I like it so much I have the soundtrack. However, the Final Fantasy music kinda puts it to shame to me. CT's story is simplistic, moves quickly, and isn't excessively complicated. It doesn't muck up the gameplay with long, tired, boring exposition scenes (and Toriyama was involved in it?!). When the game shows cinemas, it's usually for the essential and more dramatic moments. It gives it more impact, IMO. Less is more a lot of the time. However, it isn't "epic." It's far from even being serious. Frankly, RPGs that take themselves too seriously tend to grate on my nerves. The replay is of course obvious: New Game + and tons of endings. The gameplay is turn-based, but with regular attacks, magic, non-magic techs, double-techs, triple-techs--there's a lot more variety there. I liked the elimination of random battles, too. Like FFVI, the last leg of the game has optional side quests, and exploring the different time eras is of course neat. Cross, I'd hoped, would expand on the gameplay while retaining the original's magic. Well...no... I'd say that if CT was indeed picked for best game ever, a hell of a lot of people's opinions were colored far too heavily by nostalgia.

"That may be, but like him, I don't trust third-party gear regardless, especially something like a memory card." Agreed, especially after losing data on the PS1 and N64, and game data playing hide and seek on my DC Mega Memory Card.

Anyanka will hate it because it still will come off as biased. Thing is, FFVII was rated at the time based on other RPGs on that system... It's not hard to get good reviews when your competition includes freakin' Beyond the Beyond. However, compared to what it could have been, its absolutely stunning in it's mediocrity. The lack of innovation is frankly staggering. Square's Playstation titles were basically a remix of their old 16-bit hits with a shiny new coat of paint. Oh yeah, and a few things swiped from other series (You know, Sephiroth really was kinda cool...WHEN HE WAS CALLED ZIO). Looking back on it today, it can be viewed as a significant title that had a profound impact...a negative one in a lot of ways, but still an impact. However, I fail to see how anyone but the most biased of fans can still look back on it and find it every bit as enthralling and engaging as they seem to believe. Newer RPGs, even though many of them are obtuse, preachy, and pretentious, kinda blow this previous effort out of the water in every way, don't they? Although I would argue that the Lunar retreads even kinda put it to shame.

According to GMR, the Fight Nights probably will top the list.

"And presumably that one is FFVI, I hope." I think probably IV would be it. Flik?

"Either that, or they're just trying to make him so pissed he won't sign another contract." Can't they just, you know, not offer him a new contract? Okay, so was Vince not at Smackdown at all or just not at the press conference?

Art imitates life, eh Andrew? Nope. The one arcade around here kinda sucks.

But it's just like real life! Lord knows how many times I've had to run around looking for black cars... And sailors. I'd say the game could have hugely benefited from plenty of roving gangs of street thugs. Then I remember that it plays like Virtua Fighter, and I have my doubts. Sega should have just shot for a 3D River City Ransom and they'd have had a lot more engaging a game on his names. Worst of all, that was about the only freakin' game that Sega ever promoted for the Dreamcast. Yeah, but last time I played I had to carefully carry books outside and set them on benches, then I uncovered some clues and...the arcade?!?! ALRIGHT!! *makes no further progress on the main game*

I don't like the respawning necessarily, but it's not as boring, at least. I like a game that keeps you on your toes and makes you fight for your digital life. Games with excessive wandering and no danger = zzzzz. That's why Shenmue is noticably missing from my DC game list. It has to be the most boring game I've ever played, even surpassing FFTA. So even though I don't quite get chaorage's OoT hatred, he does have a valid point about that aspect.

I'd say the PS2 GTAs probably got higher numbers internationally as well, since they have the higher market penetration...plus about 3 Japanese people own X-Boxes. What about the X-Box double pack?

"Dropped the limit thing, eh?" Sure, you sufficiently defended your point, so I conceed. Not that it was my argument against the game in the first place, but that isn't a significant problem with the game, as it apparently is in FFVIII. I last played the game, what, 7 years ago? I trust your knowledge about it is probably far more accurate than mine, even if I believe your praise for it is very undeserved. "Attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, cure, attack, attack, attack, ect. works in every FF." Yeah. And considering there isn't a hell of a lot of skill or brainpower involved in it, shouldn't that change? It's 2004. Surely Square can try a better battle system by now. ...oh wait, they did. It's in Kingdom Hearts, not in Final Fantasy.

That sounds very likely. Source?

Actually G------T-----A isn't in the top selling 5 for PS2, so I'm pretty sure they were at one time, you know. Unlike PS2, the X-Box isn't exactly bursting at the seams with dozens of great new games. The quality may be higher overall, but the number of great titles is lower. It's probably a less-extreme example of how almost any N64 game would be a hit because N64 owners were so starved for new games. How many Halos have been sold overall, and how many GTA3/VCs have been sold? I don't care for any of those games, but I'm curious. It would allow for a more accurate comparison, at least. Also, isn't Fight Night the number 1 selling X-Box game? Where is it listed X-Box still is the 4th top selling X-Box game?

Tough battles would be, say, when you enter a new area with significantly tougher areas. "Hard boss" in FFVII? The Weapons? Those are the only ones I can actually think of. The rest, including Seph, are pussies. You have to love the Most Overblown, Excessive, Freakin' Long Summon Ever, and then you laugh your ass off at how much damage it actually did to your party. I'm thinking they were mostly on the mark with the "select Fight over and over" thing, although the "summon and run away" stuff does seem to directly contradict that. So, which is it? They don't really clarify what they're saying. Summons in most battles would be pretty much a waste. You could use Summons a hell of a lot if you keep a nice stockpile of MP-restoring items. Unlike, say, FFIV, items and money to buy items with were extremely plentiful. Ditto for VI. Personally, from what I remember from memory (because I was mostly a "Fight, occasionally use Magic" battler myself), summons were briefly useful about half to 3/4 of the way through the game, then they become pretty freakin' useless, because all but a couple of summons are single-hitters, and you can do about as much damage with a single "Fight" strike. Yeah, most of the single-hitters hit all enemies...but that's only a big deal in a random battle (since most bosses are single-target), which almost never would be a tough battle to begin with. That's another problem that FFVI shares, because late in the game the Espers are reduced to little more than stat bonus items. The actual summons get to be useless. Heh, apology accepted. I should hope so. I mean, I'd expect that from a FFanatic who has played all of 3 non-Square RPGs in his/her life, but you should know better.

Does it bother you? I'd think you'd be used to it by now. You realize neither of us are taking this personally, right? If you have three party members, it's very likely to get 2-3 of them to get their limit breaks if you're taking heavy damage. I never said one person could get it 2-3 times per battle. I didn't bust her chops about the summons because she, as usual, didn't provide any actual examples or evidence backing up her points. Therefore, nothing to actually dissect was there. She just said it was so, and that was that. Frankly, I think the desperation attacks in VI worked better--when you were low on life, randomly you'd do an ultra-powerful counter-attack. However, if you get a love tap as your Limit Break meter is about full, but you have almost full HP and you have no other choice but to use it when the gauge is flashing--the LBs aren't quite as useful, are they? Sakura disagrees. Lord knows why, or what basis she has for it. *gasp* Really? I was agreeing with her about that part. Do I have to spell it out for you? "N-O A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T." By definition, that means we're agreeing on a point. Capiche? Who is the one flaming now, hypocrite?

What are the options? You can switch to the left stick turning left & right and strafe with the right stick. Doesn't help--looking/aiming up/down is still a pain, because you have to constantly re-adjust going up hills while being pelted with enemy fire. Kudos to those that can put up with it.

Thing is, it doesn't. You think that was the point? You're the queen of it; you tell us. I'm trying to wrap my head about what's inaccurate about that. Any tough battles might knock you into 2-3 limit breaks. Any game with a Bon Jovi clone in it deserves to be incessantly mocked anyway, so no argument.