Sheikah

The thing is though, even if the gamecube had no 3rd party support whatsoever it would still be worth buying, simply for 1st party. I think the term 'no 3rd party' was flung around far too often, while discarding the fact that there were tons of great first party games often better than random 3rd party games. I'm not saying I didn't really enjoy games like RE4 and ToS, just that it was still an incredible console for me at least on 1st party alone.

Well, from your posts, you seem like someone who actually puts time and effort into being unpleasant. The overexaggeration and general moaning you're doing makes me want to switch off.

Maybe, but for a while at least we have to put up with forced awkward control schemes for bad games until the real good ones come out. Sometimes motion sensing is good, but I'd rather have a choice.

Can't agree there, although the Wii is successful financially, I don't think the gamecube broke anything. It had some amazing games, while having far less gimmicky games.

Well chuck, there are many people out there who are simply idiots. Of the 2 preowned games I bought yesterday, both looked like they had been played by people with limited attention spans. Pokemon FireRed had a 12 minute save; a guy with a L7 squirtle who had named his rival "fatso". Golden Sun had an hour or so save - odd since the cut off point was basically just at the end of Sol Sanctum (where you get some pay off for doing the dungeon). There seem to be many people who either don't care to replay or just don't get games, so trade them in. I've never bought a preowned game that hasn't worked, and if you look after it it's not going to get any worse.

I used to like the meatball sandwhich, now it just seems so sloppy and disgusting. I remember asking the staff once what meat the 'meatball' was, and he replied "What?" =S

These games are a few MB, they could be loaded in seconds at the start of play.

For me, Twilight Princess. Wind Waker has a fresh graphical style but much of the gameplay lets it down. Obviously, the sailing. It didn't feel so much as if I was sailing to places, just waiting for the island to appear on the screen while going over identical sea for 5 minutes. It really broke everything up, which I didn't like. As well as this, the story was pretty lame and the NPCs were uninspiring. TP didn't wow me as much as previous Zelda's, but it was more along the lines of a 'true' Zelda. While this may not be original, it's fun to play. I wish it was a bit harder though.

Golden Sun 1 and Pokemon FireRed, both unboxed and £5 each. Good deal I'll say.

1. Super Smash Brothers (ahead by an enormous amount). 2. Tales of Symphonia. 3. Resident Evil 4.

Yeh, you've already met my girlfriend by the looks of it. She didn't want to join this forum when I talked about it, neither did she want to buy Pokemon FireRed. Then on both...U-turn!

I usually dislike anime movies that are based on a series. FMA's was pretty good but not what I wanted to happen.

Good riddance. What a load of shit.

Yeh, I meant more or less real time hack+slash/RPGs, they tend to be button mashers or simply have little strategy involved.

In real time games there is no strategy, because strategy itself is the art of planning in advance and pre-empting the future. It's ridiculous to suggest many real time games have more strategy. Turn based battles is one idea of strategy since not only do you have the time to plan your moves rather than button mash or think on the fly, you can also generally do more than block or attack.

Blocking and attacking in real time is not more strategy, why do you think a lot of turn based games are classed as 'strategy'? Blocking and attacking in real time isn't strategy, it is a natural reaction. There certainly isn't any strategy in super paper mario. Just use Carrie and you can jump on and kill almost anything. In fact, most bosses can be defeated by simply jumping on them.

I watched The Girl Who Leapt Through Time yesterday, and it is definitely worth the watch. As far as anime movies go, this is at the top of the list for me.

I completed this earlier, and I have to say at a push, to rate it I'd give it 6. I think having a story forced on me that was so poor really did downplay the experience for me. I started out quite enjoying the game, but eventually the gameplay lost its novelty and I was left with a watered-down 2D Mario game. I think the sidequests could be some of the least interesting in a game. Collecting recipes by making food that is unnecessary, or collecting cards to deal damage to enemies I will probably never face again seems utterly pointless. The 100 battle pits also started to grind and I honestly couldn't find the motivation to complete them. When I said this game was like a watered-down 2D Mario game, I'm probably referring to the difficulty. Think instead of having 2 hits before death, you have maybe 30. Instead of having to carefully avoid or kill enemies, you can flip or use a plethora of pixls, including infinite bombs to dispose of the enemies. Then instead of praying for a mushroom to come along, you can just use a number of healing items from your bag. As you can guess, I'm not impressed. I have played Paper Mario games before, but the transition to a more or less proper platformer made me want to compare it to other Mario games. This was just too easy, and at many times, boring!

Finished watching the final episode in the 74 ep series of Monster. It has some really well done characters, psychological questions and a deep plot. Definitely worth a watch if anyone fancies it. Currently I'm about to watch "The Girl Who Leapt Through Time", apparently a film that has great awards.

I'm going into my final year at the University of Manchester. Anyone coming here?

I think it was better than anything before it, as it wasn't all 2D and uncomfortable (if you knew how to hold it properly). Only trumped by the gamecube and PS1/2/3 pads.

Yeh I realise that, but it still takes the one person to look them up, do them enough until they can perform them well, then for that person to play with people for quite a bit for them to rub off/be picked up. And then there are people who simply cannot be arsed. Well SSB does have quite a long life since it can be played countless times with different outcomes. Unfortunately, even with the prospect of learning techniques the game got somewhat boring, since it was essentially the same levels and a game that had been played a lot. It's still fun for a quick duel now and then, but I'm holding out for the Wii version now. Yeh, no doubt they play for fun too. Probably a bit of bad wording on my part. I honestly meant people who just played without on the fly without any additional technique learning etc; people who consider SSB just another game in their collection to play. Sorry, I was referring to Goron_3 who said something like 'you talk a load of shit', and had an angry tone. And, well, when I saw that person 'Marth_player' I honestly didn't expect my opinions on Roy to be well received. :p

Ok, perhaps not, nonetheless competetive play (which is what I have being talking about from the very beginning) is the kind of play where you aim to gain ranks and attend meets (in this case, because there is no online play). It's simple. The fact of the matter is, unless you go onto GameFAQs (or a similar place) and purposely look for these techniques, you will more than likely not naturally learn them, and if you did perform one of the techniques by chance there's a good likeliness you would pass it by or not realise how you did it. This massively cuts down on the number of people with the game using those techniques. Not just people without internet access, but laziness and also lack of knowledge of the techniques. The second factor is that if you don't play other people using the techniques (more than likely with everyone I have played with) there is no real incentive for a person to better themself, as they are quite capable of doing well in the games they play already. Let's stop for a second. The term 'playing for fun' and 'actually having fun' are very different. One clearly expresses a laid back, no consequences or real care for the outcome, where you probably don't put much effort into preparation, whereas the other is an individual's enjoyment. It's like saying the world cup final is 'just for fun' - hell no, but I'm sure the players are having fun (if not crapping themselves). I realise that most of the people here are adamant competetive players or technique users, which is why I feel this line of discussion is getting a little biased, heated and ugly. I am only expressing the likeliness of the total number of SSB players, past and present. If you like using techniques, good. Just don't be angry at me when I say it most probably is quite a small percentage of the total players using them (if you consider the number of people who must have owned this game at one point, too).

Wow, it seems like someone has got very emotional about a game. Sorry to twang your nerve. Did I say Roy was better? No, so now you are just making a fool of yourself. If you go back and read what I was saying, perhaps you can amend your post. There's no need to be childish and assume things in an insultive way. The fact of the matter is, ranked people or people who train to competitively play (I do know a couple of people) most certainly do train, not just play battle after battle. Mostly because they don't always have someone to play with, but also because simply playing a game would not allow you to master certain techniques (unlike say, practice mode). As for the comment on turnups for tournaments, they could be the entire of Wales and that still wouldn't be a dent on the number of people who do not play competetively. Sorry to offend something you probably attend at every given occasion, I am just stating simply and truthfully that like just with most games, people do not play competetively. Yeh I may have said the turnup was pisspoor, probably wrong of me in saying that. But I was actually thinking of them as a comparison to the number of copies of the game sold. And yeh, when I said the guy was talking bollocks, he was. Do you honestly think 50% of people who play SSB play competetively, that is take part in competitions and train using these advanced techniques? Techniques that generally have to be mastered, read online etc. I find it bizarre how you can take me up on telling someone they were wrong for something which they blatantly were. I think you are mistaken about the kinds of players we are talking about. Not competetive as in a group of friends competing with each other (surely this is the case in any game of SSB), I am talking about a different league of players who master moves such as wavedash, who know the ins and outs of different moves and as a result probably go to meetups (otherwise there would be no point in learning to play in such a way, given the chance of randomly coming across people the same, I guess).