SeanDMan

No. You suck. Never post at a Fallout board, ever. Need more expansions in games, and better options. See Quarterback Club on N64, custom uniforms, pick your own stadium/weather patterns city name and logo. It's never been done as well since. And where the hell were you GTA replayability haters when Matzat and whatshisface doubled up on me? Bastards.

Jesus man, you have like 5 sigs a day, you damn whore.

Tristy, what the fuck did you do to Laurence Fishburn?

Actually his middle name was Steven, but he had it legally changed to The Hitman so that it would be on his grave when he died.

"There are no Americans in Moscow, who said that? They're crazy! We have beat the infidels back at the border, there are no Americans in Moscow!" *loud banging at the door, muffled shouting* "This is the United States Army! All filthy pinkos are ordered to come out with your hands up!" *shifty glance* "Well I have to go, I am having dinner with Comrade Putin, but rememeber there are no infidels in Moscow! FOR MOTHER RUSSIA! aw fuck I'm hosed FOR THE HOMELAND!"

i talked about GTA the series not GTA one the game, and i am pritty shure that is not lost in anny bad spelling ore gramma on my part. :-/ ← Okay no I just reread your post, I misunderstood, my fault. While it is innovative in that it's the only game to jam everything in that package, it's not the first game with that package, nor is it the first game that had what it jammed in there, I call that deritive, if you call that innovative, it's a difference of opinion, although as usual I'm right.

Your saying it was something new because it wasn't like GTA 1? How so. And you're pretty nitpicky yourself Matzat. :thumbsup: Edit: Errrr... yeah, I dunno about you, but I can't even afford the bandwidth I use to aquire games, forget buy them every month. If I want a game I pick up a game I will like and that will last, I DID NOT BUY True Crime, on the other hand I did buy GTA 3, but it has almost no replay value, I didn't even bother to buy Vice City as I beat it on a 3 day rental.

What did GTA have that set it apart? They said freedom. It had been in other games. They said driving. It's bene in other games. Mature content, and so on, and so on. If you want to be nitpicky, then there are no "original" games. What does KOC have that other games don't have? Wrestling? OMG WAIT. GTA was the whole package is just something you can't find in any games. So was the Fifth Element, it didn't make it any good. And I preferred True Crime to GTA, the ability to change the storylines with your actions (OMG) made it a superior game, and it was rediculously over the top in it's violence which makes it fun and enjoyable. Edit: You're right, it might be fun. But it's derivative, has low replay value, and is marketted to an audience with the combined intelligence of Droppytop. It's not worth more then a rental, because once you beat it once, it's just mindlessly repitative, let's drive over people, why not just play Carmegeddon?

Your only point of GTA's innovation was it's freedom, well, let me go back to my old faithful, Fallout. Released in 1997 (2 years before Grand Theft Auto 2, I'd like to add), it's got a hell of a lot more freedom then GTA, GTA even if it lets you wander around, still has a linear storyline, you do the missions, blah. Play Fallout. Get a mission, don't like it? Kill the idiot who gave it to you. You say... Uh, not exactly. Kill people? Yeah, Fallout's got that. Fuck whores? Yeah, Fallout's got that. Be a police man? Yeah, Fallout's got that. Fallout lets you do anything GTA can, join the mafia, run people down, and it's got some things GTA can't touch. In GTA, can you... make a man dig his own grave ("There are two kinds of people in the world, Lloyd, those with loaded guns, and those who dig. Get digging.") and then throw a landmine on his head? sell your friends and entire cities into slavery? set a man on fire and enjoy watching him dance around in agony as he is burnt to death? do drugs, and SELL drugs? set off an A-Bomb in Los Angeles? Yeah, so your freedom point is rebuked, GTA isn't innovative, it's derivative. It's more free then Driver, sure, but it's by no means the standard bearer when it comes to freedom in video games. Every company wants to make a GTA because IT SELLS, not because it innovated the industry, there are lots of games that innovate the industry but don't sell, Silent Storm, Extreme Paintball, some good some bad, but unless they sell truckloads, no one rips them off. It's not a fact that it revolutionized the industry, it marketted concepts existing on PC games to the stupider console audience, in that sense of the narrow definition of the industry, it was "REVOLUTIONARY", again, it's still a mind-numbingly repetitive overproduced piece of garbage.

Cut me a line, too. Wow you play it everyday. AND THUS IT IS FULL OF REPLAY VALUE. Or maybe it's just the same shit over and over again and you play it because you are a stupid corporate whore who is easily amused? I know which one I'm voting for. :thumbsup: Come on man, you play the game once, you do the missions of which there are about 8 different types and then they just change the nationalities and names of the bad guys, then what can you do? Randomly run people over, do stupid car jumps, fuck hookers? The game is one giant novelty act, it's just a game of crash TV, oh look, hookers, once you grow up you'll see that too. And innovative? Driver was innovative, it was a pinnacle game for the Playstation, mission based driving and organized crime, sound familar? Yes, GTA was doing it on the Super Nintendo and the PC but Driver brought it into the next generation, GTA did force changes to the genre, it introduced walking into video games ( ), but it didn't create the genre, nor did it revolutionize it. Driver had all the fundamentals, GTA marketted hard a liscensed sounctrack and really pushed hard the violence, but the gameplay wasn't revolutionary, it was gimmicky. It also helped that Driver had some horrible bugs that killed off the franchise and that GTA has better graphics (OMG HOOD RELFECTION!), it's marketted to a stupider audience, and they bought it. GTA 2 was much better as a depth game, and Matzat I prefer playing them on PC too, Multiplayer saves what is for me a mediocre game.

Maybe THATS what the WMD were, really good soccer players!

The more I see that commercial, the more I love the James Bond game. Also, does anyone know where I can legally ( ) get that song? You can PM me if it makes you feel more comfortable.

Brutus looks retarded... which is to say it's an accurate recreation.

It's going to suck.

This guy: Only sober.

Media. MEDIA!?!?!?!

http://members.tripod.com/~islander31/raw10a.jpg That's the Undertaker I want, the one I remember. I don't see anything wrong with adding Attitude Legends, such as Ministry Taker, Mankind, Owen Hart, Nation Rock... their contributions are legendary now, not to the level of a Hulk Hogan, but more then Kane. No offense Kaneanite. But if you want old school, then take that Taker. The dark Taker. He always looked stupid with the big grey boots and cleaned up face, and that stupid tie. They picked the wrong Undertaker, and as a result he looks stupid.

He's fat, his jacket is retarded, and he tucks his fucking tie into his pants, but he's not retarded? He looks fucking stupid and not like any Undertaker. They picked the Wrong period Undertaker to emulate, as they seemed to pick him from the "Undertaker/Fake Undertaker" fued which was the worst point in his career, and when he looked his stupidest.

That Sharpshooter does look pretty awesome, but the Undertaker looks retarded,

American History X Requim for a Dream Resevoir Dogs Kill Bill The Usual Suspects The Empire Strikes Back The Matrix The Undiscovered Country Aliens Way of the Gun

I thought Ali-G was the UK's answer to Eminem

Golly gee Scooby, roll that shit up tight! Rooby dooby dube! That's right, now suck me off Daphne. Yeah, take it deep. Hey look a mystery! Roh no! What'll we do Shaggy? Roll that window down, motherfucker. *Shaggy sticks an AK out the window and caps a fucking ghost niggah* Stay out of Riverdale! Fags! Scooby dooby owned! That's right Scooby, now light that shit up.

You're right, in all those genres, Sony has the edge. Now. If Nintendo begins to market in those genres, it can compete, it got the Resident Evil license, it's clearly not afraid the make mature games, but it really hasn't pushed it to the level Sony has, and have seen numbers fall off as a result. Marketting sunk and can reinflate Nintendo.

No.

I disagree. Although the diversity of games has dropped off substantially, there were good games on the N64. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark are still excellent console shooters and can still be played today. The All-Star Baseball and Quarterback Club series on the N64 were solid games that looked amazing at the time, and played much better then some Playstation equivalents. Ocarina of Time was awesome (although I didn't like MM very much) and when Mario 64 came out, it awed. Following up on that was the rediculously sucessful multiplayer smash Super Smash Brothers. To me, it is obvious from your choice in games that you are an RPG fan. Doubtless then you wouldn't really like the fact that Nintendo's thrid party support was horrible and they thus lost games such as the Final Fantasy series and the Chrono Triggers. But with a new marketting strategy, there isn't any reason why they can't win over people like you again.