Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - baberg

Pages: [1] 2 3
General Chat / The Matrix Reloaded......Anyone seen it?
« on: May 19, 2003, 01:01:00 PM »
I agree, Rick.  As I was typing my reply, I realized that Neo isn't really needed at all.  Unless it is as DRJ implies, that Neo's interface (assuming we're in meta-Matrix here) has a small bug in the software that makes him aware of the meta-Matrix.

But then again, why don't the computers just switch him off?  And why don't they switch off the 1% who doesn't accept the 1999 Matrix?

You're right - the meta-Matrix fixes the plot hole of using powers outside the Matrix, but opens up far too many others to be right.

General Chat / The Matrix Reloaded......Anyone seen it?
« on: May 19, 2003, 11:32:55 AM »
My thoughts, below:

The humans in Zion are not actually free of the Matrix, they're simply in another Matrix.  The "real world" hasn't yet been seen by any humans - everybody who has "broken out" is actually still trapped, although in a different world than the rest of humankind.  99% of the world can be fooled by the 1999 world.  The other 1% is too skeptical and needs this harsher "reality" because, after all, it's pain and suffering that defines reality (see Agent Smith's comments on the previous version of the Matrix).  

The other Zions were other meta-Matrixes that the machines culled.  Let a few break out of 1999, and when the numbers get high enough to warrant it, track them all down and kill them.  I'm not sure where Neo fits in, though.  Maybe he's a special kind of Agent, as Rick suggested.  Maybe he's supposed to somehow believe he's doing the right thing to save Zion but ends up destroying it, I don't know.

It's kind of a cheesy way out, but the meta-Matrix does explain how Neo can use his abilities "outside" the 1999 Matrix - the "real world" still a computer program that he can affect.

General Chat / war in iraq
« on: May 19, 2003, 11:15:25 AM »
Ok, oohhboy, what's your solution?  If everything has truly fallen into the toilet, how do you propose we fix it?  Let the USA invade every country that disobeys a UN directive?  Dissolve the UN?  Create a true world government with all nations as nation-states?  Move to Mars?  Nuke 'em all, let God sort 'em out?  Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die?

Personally, I like the last one best.

General Chat / war in iraq
« on: May 19, 2003, 08:38:52 AM »
I found the poll for you, nolimit19.  Taken in February, 76% thought Saddam provided assistance to terrorism (and he may have, I won't dispute this) but 72% believed that Saddam had personal involvement with the September 11th attacks.  Now I'm not naive enough to believe everything I read, and I know that statistics and public opinion polls are easily manipulated.  Still, I believe most Americans have misdirected their hatred and anger over September 11th onto Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

And yes, 1984 is depressing.  It's supposed to be depressing.  It's supposed to make you so sad and enraged at the thought of Thought Police and doublespeak that you take action against it when you begin to see it in your own world.  And therein lies the beauty.

General Chat / war in iraq
« on: May 19, 2003, 04:55:03 AM »

Baberg you present good facts, but your cynicism does nothing for your credibilty.
What an odd statement.  I could understand my cynicism hurting my credibility if I presented no facts and simply ranted without backup.  However, when I give facts to support my ideas I don't see how the delivery should affect those facts.  Maybe it's just my style - sarcastic, cynical, and bitter.

Try reading it as if Jon Stewart of The Daily Show were reading it - add a touch of humor, some sly remarks.  That's the style I'm looking for.  But regardless, I find it strange that my presentation should have any bearing on the facts therein.  But that's just me.

France, Germany, Russia have fail because because of thier own self centered interest had prevented them from estabishing a united front.
That's right, those three nations did have their own self-centered interests.  So did the US.  It just so happens that the US's interests involved invading a soverign nation while France, Germany, and Russia did not.  As for "upholding UN resolutions" I ask you this - why did the US and UK essentially fight this war alone?  Gulf War I (with Bush Senior) was fought with the united backing of the UN.  France sent warplanes, Germany assisted...  Everybody was fighting against the Iraqi aggressor.  But in Gulf War II, there were only a smattering of nations involved.

I had a revelation last night.  I was thinking of the book 1984 by George Orwell which, incidentally, you all must read.  It's a short book but packed full of relevant material in the post-9/11 world.  Startling, as it was written in 1949.

In one scene in 1984, the people of Oceania (US and UK, essentially) are in the midst of a "hate fest" where people gather together to hurl insults at the leader of Eastasia (China and other eastern nations, essentially).  Then, in the middle of the hate fest, the image changes to the leader of Eurasia (Russia et al).  The populace, so used to taking what the government and media say for granted, immediately forget that they were at war with Eastasia and now hurl insults at Eurasia.  The anger of the populace was redirected immediately onto somebody who was, until that moment, not hurting anybody in Oceania.

Compare this to the US with respect to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.  For weeks after 9/11 the populace of the US was made to hate Osama Bin Laden and everything he stood for.  Afghanistan was invaded, the Taliban was overthrown, but Osama Bin Laden was replaced by Saddam Hussein.  People redirected their hatred of Osama onto Saddam almost immediately, to the point where a majority of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the planning of 9/11 (when, in fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and none from Iraq).

EDIT: Fixed formatting

General Chat / war in iraq
« on: May 15, 2003, 06:16:15 AM »
Sorry for resurrecting this thread from the dead, but I just wanted to say a few things.

Looks like there were no WMDs after all.  Halliburton, the company that Dick Cheney presided over and sill receives $1 million a year from, has been awarded exclusive rights to put out oil fires and, what's more, has been given an addition $50 million for a total of $76 million in government money.  That money, by the way, comes out of your own pockets and the pockets of every taxpaying American.

Saddam Hussein is still alive and still urging the Iraqis to fight against the indavers.  US troops killed 13 civilians who gathered to protest the US occupation of a schoolhouse.  Before anybody says "the Iraqis fired first" should look at the source of that quote - the soldiers who killed the civilians.  We'll never know who really fired first, or if the use of force was justified.

Terrorism still runs rampant and Al-Qaida is obviously still alive and kicking.  And guess what?  Osama Bin Laden is still alive.

But that's ok!  The jobless rate at home jumped to 6 percent, the federal deficit will be the largest ever, and Jenna won Survivor!

So all is well!

EDIT: It appears there's more to the story about Halliburton's contract than I knew.  Up to $7 billion.  No bidding.  And VP Cheney only stepped down from being CEO when he received the Vice Presidential nomination.  Where's the outrage?  Oh, right, it's directed at Saddam and Osama Bin Laden.  Sorry.

General Chat / RE: Stanley Cup Playoffs
« on: May 13, 2003, 06:42:46 PM »
My predictions (which were made last Friday, before Game 1 of each series):

Ducks in 5.  Giguere is unstoppable and the Wild have outlasted their luck.  They're tired, they're worn out, and they're outclassed.
Devils in 6.  Tough call here, but the Devils have patience and won't take too many stupid penalties.  Senators just don't look like they want to win.

The Cup: Devils in 5.  The Ducks will take the first or second game away from the Devils as New Jersey underestimates them.  The others go to the Devils, and they celebrate in New Jersey after game 5.

General Gaming / Star Wars Galaxies Beta
« on: May 12, 2003, 09:09:04 AM »
Ok, here's the deal.  Star Wars Galaxies is currently in their Beta 3 phase, with a few thousand people playing it.  When a beta tester is selected, they receive a CD with a beta key as well as a confirmation e-mail with both a key and a download link.  This is so you can invite a friend to join you in playing SWG.

I've as yet been unable to get accepted into the beta test and so I've taken to grovelling for a "buddy key" to the beta.  If any of y'all receive an invitation to SWG beta (or have an account you no longer use) please toss me an e-mail at baberg1492(at)  I'm desperate.  Please, think of the children.  

General Chat / X-2 : The SPOILER I've seen it topic
« on: May 04, 2003, 07:16:15 AM »
Thanks Chasefox.  I must've missed that cameo...  I was distracted by the rest of the scene :-)

General Chat / RE: X-2 : The SPOILER I've seen it topic
« on: May 04, 2003, 04:39:12 AM »
BrianSLA, I knew what the ending was going to be, but only because I knew of the comics.  When I first saw the fire in Jean's eyes, I knew that she was becoming the Phoenix, and thusly, I knew that she had to sacrifice herself for the group (because of the comic storyline).  And, as a result of that, I knew that X3 was going to kick ass with Jean returning as the Phoenix.  

Rick, where was Hank in the film?  The only adult male non-main-character X-man I remember is Colossus, and the name-only cameo of Gambit.  

General Chat / RE: X-2 : The SPOILER I've seen it topic
« on: May 03, 2003, 05:46:44 PM »
First off - excellent movie.  Go see it, now.  If you haven't seen the first one, I suggest you rent that one to watch first - you'll enjoy the story a lot more.  "X2" is to "X-Men" just as "The Empire Strikes Back" is to "Star Wars".  A sequel that not only expands upon the first but introduces a whole new story with a gripping cliffhanger ending, complete with a tragic loss (Luke's hand versus...  you'll see).  Now, I'm an old-school Xmen comic fan, so I'll pop in to answer a few questions and clear things up.

Mastermind was a more imposing character in the comics.

Well, yeah, up until he died from the Legacy virus.  But that's another matter altogether.  And thanks for pointing out that Mastermind was Jason Wyngarde.  I sat in the theatre thinking "Jason Stryker, who is that?"  Guess he went by Jason Wyngarde in the comics...

And who's Jubilee?

Jubilee (in the comics) is a mallrat who can shoot fireworks out of her fingertips.  One of the famous scenes with her was playing an arcade game which, subsequently, malfunctions from her unconscious power.  Her power level has jumped up quite a bit since those days, but in the comics she's a close friend of Wolvie, much like Rogue is in the movies.

...the camera's swooping over the water, and you see this light thing under the surface. Is that her?

Yes, in a way.  If you think back to it, doesn't the light under the water kinda look like a flying bird?  Two outspread wings with a body trailing behind?  It's meant as a cinematic teaser to everybody who has read the comics - Jean has become the Phoenix, join us in X-3!

What's the Phoenix?

In Greek mythology, a Phoenix is a bird who, every 500 years, dies in fire (of its own creation) only to arise from the ashes more powerful than it was before.  You may have heard the phrase, "Like a Phoenix rising from the ashes".  The Phoenix was used to symbolize rebirth and resurrection, as well as great power consuming oneself.

In the comics, Phoenix is a God who takes an interest in Jean Grey.  Jean sacrifices herself for the other X-men, piloting a space ship down from orbit during a horrible solar flare.  The radiation was thought to have killed her, but in actuality the Phoenix stepped in right before Jean died.  And, if you remember the movie, something similar happens there as well.

I'm glad that the screenwriters are taking story arcs from the comics and adapting them to the movies, but I'm worried about how they're going to resolve the resurrection of Jean in the next movie - I think that average moviegoer won't accept "Oh, Jean, yeah, she didn't really die, she was resurrected."  I mean, it's one thing to accept miracles like that in a comic, it's another to accept it in a movie.

TalkBack / Mother 1 + 2 Announced!
« on: April 14, 2003, 10:15:34 AM »
Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.

And if you see it on PGC, it's legit.  Period.

As for Mother, I never played it the first time around and so I for one am looking forward to it.  And on my new GBP to boot!

TalkBack / Nintendo Extends Bundle Promotion
« on: April 14, 2003, 05:10:03 AM »
I also noticed that Resident Evil 0 was not included in the bundle anymore.  I'm willing to bet this is a result of Capcom coming out and declaring that their relationship with Nintendo is on shaky ground.  Very interesting...

General Chat / Stanley Cup Playoffs
« on: April 12, 2003, 04:57:04 AM »
Well, I don't know who's going to win.  And to be honest, I don't care who's going to win.  I just want the games to be good (3OT game was incredible).   It's the same way I feel about the Super Bowl, the World Series, etc.  I don't follow the sport enough to have a prediction of who will win the Cup, so I usually end up cheering for the underdogs.  And the underdogs really came through in Game 1 of each of those series - 7 upsets, I couldn't believe it.

However, friends at work are big Capitals fans, so I'll be cheering the Caps on to victory over the Lightning.  But in any case, I'm really looking forward to the series.  Multiple games of hockey to watch nearly every night - it's Hockey Heaven.

General Chat / war in iraq
« on: April 07, 2003, 07:44:40 PM »
I'm sorry.  I know that I said I was out of this debate, but I cannot let this go unanswered.

Originally posted by: The Omen
How long was the fallout from ww2?  Did all those children come and attack us because we killed their parents?
To draw analogies between World War II and this Gulf War II is preposterous.  In World War II, we had a violent aggressor in the form of Adolf Hitler.  He invaded several nations and made his point clear that he would stop at nothing short of world domination.  The United Nations did not exist at that point.  Japan attacked the US without clear provocation at Pearl Harbor.  Only after the US was attacked did they enter into the war, to say nothing of the fact that nearly every non-Axis nation was united in their goal to defeat the aggressors.

Compared to the current war, we have a dictator who has not invaded any country in 13 years.  We have the United Nations formed to solve such disputes (which both Iraq and the United States have blatantly ignored).  We have no attacks on Americans from Iraq.  We entered into this war with a majority of the world (including 3 permanent members of the UN Security Council) decrying this aggressive invasion.

There can be no comparisons between WWII and GFII.

So if we didn't go to war, terrorism would be lessened?  That's a bunch of BS.  Terrorism is getting worse no matter what we do, so we should be pro-active and 'disable' some of these factions when we have the chance.
You have twisted the meaning of my words.  Terrorism will always increase as people become more and more frustrated with their inability to harm a superpower.  That cannot be helped.  But in going to war, the number and frequency of these terrorist attacks will increase (as opposed to not being aggressive).  Look at this from the Arab point of view: The USA has attacked a nation without provocation and with shaky legal ground.  The USA has invaded Iraqi territory and made the killing of Saddam Hussein their top priority.  The USA is technologically superior to Iraq - they stand no chance against us.  From their point of view, the USA is a bully picking on a weaker kid.

As for "disabling" factions, I refer you again to the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.  Do you know how many were from Iraq?  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  Thus ends the "stop terrorism" debate - this aggression will do nothing to stop terrorism.

As far as the chemical suits go, they were found with paperwork on how to conduct chemical warfare, written in Arabic.  Along with the antidote for nerve gas.  But oh, the coalition planted it.  Which 'propaganda' are you being spoon fed?
I did not say that everything was planted.  I said that it will bear the taint of possibly being planted.  Or, the possibility of being pesticides when it's already been widely reported (and believed by most Americans) as a WMD.  

The difference between you and I is that you trust what you read and see in the media.  You believe that the media dilligently works to check their facts on news stories.  You believe that the media cannot be controlled by the government.  I treat everything that I read with speculation.  I realize that the media is controlled by the government.

By the way, SARS is in the news every hour on the major news stations, so I don't know what you're watching.
It on for a 30-second blurb and then it's back to the live coverage of Operation: Iraqi Freedom with your co-hosts Chuck and Betty, reporting Live via Sattelite on our new Quasi-Opto video phone from AT&T, brought to you this hour by Snickers: When you're invading a country, grab a Snickers!  Come on.  Turn on your TV right now - it will be people talking about the war.  Look at the front page of a newspaper - war headline, and probably nothing but war above the fold.  For the average American, the war is the only thing happening in the world of interest now.  And that's the media's fault.

You know what i've grown weary of?   Your Anti-American rhetoric.
That's right, call me unamerican.  I have a viewpoint that is different from the accepted norm.  I choose to question the government as is my right and responsibility to do, so therefore I'm unamerican.  When was the last time you heard a news anchor put forth the possibility that the US was not doing the right thing?  Is that truly an objective media?  Or is this just the fallout of September 11th, where criticizing the government became "unamerican"?

I do love America, and I hope with all my heart that no American soldiers are harmed in this war.  I also love life, and I am saddened whenever I hear of civilian and military deaths in Iraq.  They look like pretty pictures, but those are explosions going off on the other side of that camera.  Those are 2000 pound bombs being dropped from 40,000 feet above ground, and there's nothing Iraqis can do to defend themselves.  Tonight, a civilian area where Saddam Hussein and his children were rumored to be meeting was heavily bombed.  Nobody knows how many innocent people were killed tonight.  And for what?  To kill a single bad man and his children.

It's not worth it.

Nintendo Gaming / Returning a new game?
« on: April 06, 2003, 03:15:52 PM »
EB Corporate has changed their policy.  Effective March of this year (as in, a month ago) there are no refunds on opened software.  You can exchange defective software for the same product, but you can't return it and get cash credit for another game.

General Chat / war in iraq
« on: April 06, 2003, 07:06:29 AM »

Originally posted by: The Omen
We've already found thousands of chemical suits, what were they for, the prom?  And as we speak, there are sites being dug up that are believed to be chemical weapon hiding spots.  What will you say when it's proven?
So a nation is not allowed to own chemical suits to protect itself against weapons?  I bet Canada has chemical suits in their hospitals and their military bases, even if they have no chemical weapons.  It's called "preservation of human life" and is hardly proof of chemical weapons.  And it can never be "proven" to me that Iraq has any WMD after this invasion.  Any evidence that is found will always bear the suspicion of being placed there by coallition forces.

And if you're so afflicted with A.D.D. to not notice the failing economy, just because of war, then chances are you're below the average i.q.  I notice the economy, and you know what?  It'll get better, like it always does.  It's cyclical.
ADD has nothing to do with it.  How many news stories have been devoted to the economy in the past 2 weeks?  What about this SARS illness that's shut Hong Kong down?  Investigation of the Space Shuttle Columbia?  How about information on Afghanistan's new government?  You give the average American far too much credit.  

But yes, the economy will get better.  The economy got better after the Great Depression, too.  But I sure don't want to live through something like that based on the promise "It'll rebound."  Saying "the economy will get better" is like saying "the medicine will kick in eventually."  Yes, it's good to know that the pain will go away, but nobody will focus on improving the economy during wartime.

I grow weary of this debate.  I've had it far too many times with far too many people swayed by US propoganda.  The fallout of this war will be felt for decades.  It will produce a rift between Europe and the US.  It will anger all Arab nations and unite them against the US in a way never seen before.  It will reinforce the concept of the US as an aggressive imperialistic nation who gives the middle finger to the world when they want to do something.  It will create thousands of orphaned children, angry at the US for killing their parents, who will turn to terrorism for their revenge.  This war will cause more problems than it will solve.

And with that, I depart.

Nintendo Gaming / The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker General Help
« on: April 05, 2003, 06:11:36 PM »

Ok, so I'm trying to get Makar to join up with me.  I have the appropriate song from the Wind Temple.  I head to the Deku tree area and see the musical notes coming out of the waterfall.  But when I try to swing into the waterfall (as multiple FAQs have told me to do) I just hit the wall.  It seems like I can't go far enough down - I keep hitting the top part of the waterfall when it's the bottom part that I want to swing into.  Any help would be appreciated.

EDIT:Nevermind, it was a matter of timing.  For anybody else who has this problem, just release at the very bottom of a full swing, and you'll fall right through.

General Chat / war in iraq
« on: April 05, 2003, 10:49:37 AM »

Originally posted by: The Omen
Many subjects, such as economy, appear to me to change almost on it's own, in which case the pres. gets the blame or credit.
The federal budget, which is drafted by the president and approved by Congress, has a lot of influence over the economy.  In that budget are tax cuts to stimulate the economy, incentives for new businesses to open, military funding so that contractors can employ more people, and so on.  But in mid-year, the person you're looking for with respect to the economy is Alan Greenspan, who determines the federal interest rate.  So yes, the president actually has a lot of direct influence over the economy.  And as for indirect influence, we have factors such as the security of the country, confidence in the leadership, uncertainty about going to war, etc.  A strong leader will make people believe investing money is a good thing.  A weak leader yields more saving and less spending.

Saddam is a dictator.  His people have been tortured.  He is unopposed because of his guerilla war tactics.  He has invaded a country the size of my thumb.  He's gassed the kurd's.
Syria's government is a dictatorship.  Syria tortures political prisoners.  These Iraqi "guerilla war tactics" are simply tactics that go against the established rules of war, just as the USA went against the established rules of war during our Revolutionary War.  Saddam Hussein has not invaded a country in 13 years, and even then, was tacitly approved by the US.  Our "Partner in Peace" Saudi Arabia (from which 15 of the 19 September 11th hijackers came from) let 15 schoolgirls burn to death because they were not properly dressed to be in public.  Oh, and Osama Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian.

Why are we attacking Iraq again?

As for weapons of mass destruction., Hans Blix has stated , in his final report, that there is still no proof that Iraq has destroyed their chemical weapons.
...and there is also no proof that they did NOT destroy their chemical weapons.  Nor have they found any "smoking gun."  But now I guess we'll never know, because the inspectors were not given their chance to finish the job.  Any weapons found in Iraq now will bear the suspicion of being planted by coallition forces.

This war is about distracting people from a failing economy.  This war is about diverting the public's anger from an enemy we cannot kill (Bin Laden) onto one we can (Saddam Hussein).  This war is about the incredible monetary gains that can be made, mostly by companies who contributed to Bush's campaign.

This war was set in motion in March 2002.  Saddam had no choice - Bush had already made up his mind.  "F___ Saddam. we're taking him out."

General Chat / war in iraq
« on: April 04, 2003, 01:17:35 PM »

Originally posted by: kennyb27
Actually, in the early 90's France went into Iraq and built a nuclear power plant for them.  Obviously this is a bit far from the actual bombs, but its the basic technology.
...which Iraq is allowed to have under the United Nations Non-Proliferation Treaty, specifically Article IV, and France is fully justified in giving them this information from Article IV Paragraph 2.  It is not a crime nor is it morally wrong to give a nation peaceful nuclear energy.  But such a facility is necessarily large and cannot be very well hidden (less so if France helped set the facility up for them).  It is also a huge step from generating power to producing fissionable materials for use in weapons.

Also, France did provide Iraq with supplies for many of their weapons that we have found.
From what I've heard, most of the Iraqi weapons are Soviet-made AK-47s.  I could be wrong, though.  And it should also be noted that selling weapons to other nations is hardly restricted to France-Iraq, since the US has been supplying Israel with nearly $10 billion in weapons.

I'm sorry for ranting so much, but this manufactured hatred of France is really getting on my nerves.  The US media has encouraged this hatred for the French ever since they had the nerve to threaten to exercise their vetoing rights on the Security Council.  I went out to a bar last week with a friend who is French.  We know the guitarist who was playing that night, and he says "I'd like to say hi to my friend in the audience.  He's from France, but don't hold that against him".  That was met with boos and jeers.  It's unbelievable.

And don't get me started on "Freedom Fries"...

General Chat / war in iraq
« on: April 04, 2003, 12:23:40 PM »
I would think that there would be much more information on this subject if it were actually reported by major news organizations.  For instance, when Syria was believed to be selling night-vision equpiment to Iraq, it was all over the news for a full day (and can still be found here)  But France?  Especially given the US' unwarranted hatred for France right now, I would expect every news agency available to be posting about this, yet I curiously cannot find any.

Incidentally, you should all watch Canadian Bacon and read Manufacturing Consent (though MC can be a bit boring at times).  Both describe how the media is used by governments to alter public perception.  Another good read is a recent Onion article that, while satiric, really emphasizes a viewpoint not often heard.  Another good movie is Wag the Dog, but most people have already seen that one.

General Chat / war in iraq
« on: April 04, 2003, 08:49:18 AM »

Originally posted by: The Omen
This just in- France was supporting Iraq with weapons and giving them advice on how to 'last through the battle', so a diplomatic solution can be had.   Obviously, France and Russia have definate monetary interests in Iraq, which is why their both 'talking Iraq through this ordeal'.  

How surprising.  You had to know there was something up France's sleeve, those punk's.  And how could anyone ever trust Russia?  Please....
You had better have a source for that information, The Omen.  I cannot find any reference to that on CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC, Reuters, or the AP.  Either give me a source or I will not believe this.

EDIT: checked more sources and removed harsh language

General Gaming / New "Pillars" for Square-Enix
« on: April 02, 2003, 06:51:31 PM »
Well, it certainly makes sense from a business perspective.  Final Fantasy has the mainstream, "ooh, ahh" appeal with their pretty graphics and engaging storyline.  Dragon Quest has the hardcore "I must find every one of 2,000 TinyMedals on this world in 2 time periods" crowd, with basic gameplay and an excellent story.  So they need to round out their genres with an action RPG, and Kingdom Hearts is a decent game for what it was.

As for where to take the franchise, why not do Loony Tunes characters?  Or a game based on Roger Rabbit (yes, there's already been one on the NES, but that doesn't count).  Or a straight-out sequel (similar to FFX-2) for more of the same, but with better graphics/controls/camera/gameplay/etc?

Making Kingdom Hearts a staple is a good business decision, at the very least.

NWR Feedback / The Seamus Interview
« on: April 01, 2003, 03:41:13 PM »
I also had quite a few reservations about Mr. Blackley based off of some other quotes, including the infamous interview where he accused Miyamoto of being uncreative and stale, holding the industry back...  But listening to this interview, and his clarification of his quote, I realized that's he's just another gamer.  Listening to him talk, I felt like I could be having this same discussion in a chat room or a gaming store.

It still feels like he's trying to "sell" his Xbox, but I know that if I designed and published and put so much of myself into a single console, I'd constantly try to "sell" it too - kinda like a parent defending his child.

Kudos again to PGC.  You guys rock more than... something that rocks very hard.  Keep it up.

Nintendo Gaming / Zelda - Game Boy Player
« on: March 27, 2003, 02:51:01 PM »
You'll need a GBA.  In order to use the (Japanese, at least) GBPlayer, you must reset the Gamecube and insert the special boot disk, and then the GBP will power on.  I haven't tried it myself, as I just ordered my import, but I'm about 95% positive that it will not work.

Pages: [1] 2 3