LazyBoy

But say we're successful in that. Say we hand them over a safe country. Then what happens when this country continues to make extremist laws? What happens when a persevering climate of conservatism, third world economics and religious extremism breeds new Taliban? Do we invade again?

So how long do we keep the armed forces there before we take them out? When is the 'mission' there complete?

And yet, even with the magical power of the democracy, it ain't changed: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/law-will-let-afghan-husbands-starve-wives-who-withhold-sex-1740229.html

Well I got no problem with sorting out inefficiency, hell I see it every day, but every day new bills are being passed trough the commons attempting to do this, its not like it intentional. With the arts thing, well if we expect to mature culturally as a country the arts need to be funded, no question. If your argument is, 'not whilst we are at war', well we're always at war with someone, the arts would never be funded. Granted if we're being invaded it goes, and it goes before the NHS, but for a war we started on behalf of someone else against someone we helped train, no thank you. As for the EMA, I took it. My Dad was unemployed and my mum earned very little, and I wanted to go through six form. If I hadn't have taken the EMA I would've had to work. So as long as there is no abuse of the system I support it. Thing is, we're in a recession, we're already massively in debt, largely because of the war, this operation already takes up a massive amount of the countries spending budget. Thing that gets me about Afghanistan is that we've been fighting as a collective of the world's most powerful forces for 8 years now, against uneducated, poorly equipped third worlders, and more of our troops are dying now. Maybe brute force ain't the way to beat these guys.

Am I that intimating? Give it to me brief.

Foregoing all the rights and wrongs of this subject, where do the supporters of this idea suggest we getting the money to 'support the troops' from?

Right, fairly bloody sure I should be able to turn up to this, at least for a bit. J7, you still on the same number?

You could get a coach, that'd be the cheapest by far.

They don't even know if they're going to use motion+ yet. They've probably just floated some ideas and done some artwork. Won't be out till at the earliest spring 2011. And personally i'd prefer a 'celda' instead of trying to appeal the 'mature gamers' crowd. A dark link with blood and 'steampunk' is the wetdream of a pathetic fanboy who wants link to be cool and badass so he isn't embarrassed to use it in his ridiculous arguments with his schoolboy friends over which console is better. Hell make Link a raging faggot who fires rainbows out his arse for all I care. Nintendo try and make the Zelda we ask for and you get the good but bland and uninspired Twilight Princess. Let Nintendo and Miyamoto run wild and do what they want and you get a classic game like WW, which for all its faults was a breath of fresh air when it was released.

No photos or videos were allowed in, so you'll probably never see it. £10 says the artwork is non-existant in the final game. They've barely gotten started on it and this is just a placeholder to keep people content.

I'm going to buy a PS3, and if someone gives me a good offer i'll sell my Wii.

Come on, when Zechs is against Nintendo, you gotta figure they did bad (no offence) Yeah, I remember, and we all laughed it off as a joke.

It annoys me that this is what Nintendo are working on instead of creating games that push the industry and making full potential of the Wiimote, and fulfilling some of those ideas and dreams we had in our head when we first saw it. To me, where as the balance board could still be used for a new 1080 or wave race (which still haven't been announced) this is a clear message from Nintendo that their biggest project this year had nothing to do with me, but instead the single purchase casual gamer. Its a sign that they don't want my money as much as Microsoft and Sony do anymore. Microsoft showed 12 games I wanted yesterday. Nintendo showed 2.

But all of these game have to be played with one hand. And all of them have to have some relevance to your rate heart, after the first one how innovative is it going to be? Say there is even one game I want. I supposed to pay £40 + the £20 or so pounds his is going to cost just for some gimmick. No thanks.

I don't like the balance board. I've yet to play something on it which holds me for more than thirty minutes. Do you honestly think Nintendo devised this for the hardcore crowd.

This is not a game peripheral. This a gimmik for the sole purpose of milking more out of the Wii fit market. There is no part of this that was intended for the hardcore gamer. No game company that takes themselves seriously is going to make a proper game based around this, hell even if you got eternal darkness you have to play it with one hand because your other is in the damn contraption.

The only thing in the conference I liked, and I liked it alot.

And in doing so you saved your childhood self.

Whereabouts in China you going? I'll come visit (i'm living there for another year from July). Plus i'll have my motorbike license this time.

Splinter Cell was definitely included in the ten exclusives, where are you getting that its going to be mutli-platform from?

IGN is claiming its exclusive: http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/988/988687p1.html

Yeah, it was a bit of a dick move by microsoft in that respect.

If it works this could be totally revolutionary, providing it gets the games as well. As someone said, it'll be press conference over the next few days that is the tell.

My personal favourite game out of the whole conference. Looks like its going back to what made Chaos Theory one of the greatest games of last generation, and adding some kickass presentation in the mix as well. Whenabouts did they say this was coming?

So is this exclusive or not. It was after that whole "everything after is exclusive" bit, but they didn't actually mention it, which you think they would've.