Texguy1968

1. Pirates (PC) 2. Starflight (PC) 3. Railroad Tycoon (PC) 4. Super Mario Brothers 3 (NES) 5. Legend of Zelda: OOT (N64) 6. Goldeneye: 007 (N64) 7. Half-Life/Team Fortress Classic (PC) 8. Battlefield 1942 (PC) 9. Super Mario Kart (N64) 10. Ultima Online (PC)

But use Craigs List. Ebay has a policy against selling kids.

Unfortunately, you can't really give Super Mario 64 the fair shake it deserves because newer games tend to leave one jaded. But in the day, it was a system seller. Tech Demo? No. Evolution into 3D of a great franchise? Yes. None of the previous Super Mario games had a deeply involved plot. So Super Mario 64 wasn't backtracking. The game may have had camera issues, but I don't remember any control issues. In fact, I remember it being very responsive.

I've played it a few times so far, and really like it. BUT I think that they should have included all of the original maps (with the updated graphics), with their original modes. A sort of "classic" mode. And then included the updated version of some of the maps as well.

A lot of the "Bart vs...." games on the NES were quite frustrating (due to control problems) and while not unbeatable, were certainly games that you didn't really care to complete.

Wasn't one of the Battletoads games unbeatable?

Well, some of the comments say that it's actually just some sort of hack, or game refinement of Goldeneye: Rogue Agent. I'm not sure, and see nothing wrong with using the same engine to make a different game on the DS...no matter how similar looking.

Sure, but that was 5 years later. I hate that bit on the Underdogs page saying: We'll just call it a long 2.5 years

I had the game on the Apple IIGS. It was such a new idea at the time. But the Eye of the Beholder series did that style of gaming much better.

Consoles (none with boxes, but all are original and well-used): 2600 Odyssey 2 Intellivision 5200 Colecovision 7800 NES SMS Genesis SNES N64 PS1 Dreamcast Gamecube PS2 X-Box X-Box 360 Wii Handhelds: GB (original) Nomad GBA Nintendo DS

As a parent and gamer, I consider myself to be well-informed as to what games my kids shouldn't play. Even if I wasn't well-informed, it only takes a few seconds to look up reviews and ratings on the internet if one of my kids wanted a game. It's up to me as a parent to monitor what my kids are exposed to, and explain different life situations to them as they are exposed to them. It's up to me as a parent to decide what's appropriate for my own kids, not some self-appointed watchdog who uses his kid for his own gains. Jack Thompson or Tipper Gore aren't going to do my parenting for me.

Right idea in concept...but unfortunately, there are a great many kids who truly do give it all their effort in school, and still receive bad grades. It's not fair to leave kids like that out. Until schools begin giving grades for effort, this idea will never go anywhere. I have three kids who know that the after school routine includes: homework, chores, 30 minutes playing outside, and THEN they can spend time on their PC's or playing video games. As a single parent, it's not really that hard to instill this routine in them. They know that bad grades = no games.

Battletoads for the NES was pretty damn evil. So were most of the Simpsons games. Either unbeatable or just plain terrible control schemes. Evil...evil...evil.

Exactly. It's meant as a guide for parents to use when purchasing games for their kids. Best Buy should report Jack Thompson to CPS for encouraging his son to buy the game.

Just like the stories of elderly mothers of Vietnam vets who still had their son's mint condition Corvette/Camaro, we'll instead begin hearing about elderly mothers of Iraqi vets who have classic video game systems in mint condition.