Mr_8bit_16bit

Creedance Clearwater Revival, or CCR for short. Yeah. I'm still amazed at how amazed people 40+ are at our generation's (I'm 26) knowledge of their culture. For the most part, our parents passed on the legacy better than they thought they had, aparently. If there's a generation gap out there, it's only one sided. I don't know though. I think it's more case by case. My dad, for instance had very little interest in 80's and 90's music as we were growing up, and very little interest in video games. While Mom, on the other hand, was fairly with it when it came to music, and put in a lot of hours watching my brother and I play video games. Now that we're grown up, my dad is starting to get a little sentimental and getting into the games a bit, and even the music a little bit. Just today I supressed a chuckle at hearing him cuss the TV after getting schooled in Pac Man. (he's got that namco TV joystick thing.) and about a week ago I was visiting him and Black Hole Sun came on and he responded to it positively... he didn't like it when it was new. (Can you believe that song is 12yrs old already?!)

not a bad video. It started out so promising, and then I began to fear it'd be a flop when they started playing Ride of the Valkries to defender and centipede. Then when Donkey Kong came on it started to get better again, but it never truly reached that greatness that was promised by seeing Pong's and Space Invader's bleeps and blips represented by a symphony orchestra... but as I said. Not a bad video. What you should see is the live action punch out... if you follow Mendon's link, watch the video and then wait for the option to watch live action punch out. While it may not be absolutely perfect, it kept a smile on my face the whole time, and that smile got a lot bigger (my wife laughed out loud) at the statue of liberty. Also, it's funny to see how they handle glass tiger's departure....you'll see what I mean. That's all I'll say about it, you've got to check it out!

Welcome aboard. Glad to have you. Honored your first post is on my thread. I agree that Prime 1 was sooooooo addicting. And it really was perfect (well, about as perfect as anything man-made will ever get) and it felt so much like metroid that at times, I totally forgot it was 3D. In my mind's eye, I think I even saw parts of the game in 2D as if I were still playing Super Metroid. I haven't been crazy about any of the 3D mario games, because they don't feel anything at all like the 2D Mario games, and even have too few tie-ins (Like Flower Power, or the Racoon Suit, etc.). And the sonic series is even worse. One thing Sonic and Mario have in common is that in my opinion, both were better before they could talk. Much better. However, Zelda and Metroid made the transition to 3D beautifully. And felt exactly (or so darn near exact it makes your head spin) like their 2D counterparts. Those are the kinds of games that impress me. Anyway, welcome again to Atari Age, and I would reccomend you pick Prime 2 back up...unless, that is, you value your free time , cause once the bug bites, you'll lose it. I know I said in the end, I liked the first Prime better, but I would call them equal in their level of engrossment once you commit yourself.....I know you've lost that loving feeling with Prime 2, but I encourage you.... give it another try..... your friends will never see you again... at least not for about the next month.

Alright, I think I have reached a decision. I think it should be repeated that both games were fantastic. Both totally worthy and honoring of the Metroid title, and both stars at or near the top of the game cube library, and I will heartily recommend both games to everybody. But I think the larger, more balanced, more inspired, more "metroid" venues and layouts, plus the better visors, the more relevant presence of metroids, the unlimited ammo on special beams, and equally as important, the vastly superior music in Prime 1, edges out the light world/dark world element (the light and dark weapons too), the barely perceptible graphics improvements, and more solid story line of Prime 2. Ironically, even with the perceived shortness of Prime 2 relative Prime 1, I logged less time in Prime 1 by almost 6 Hours, and had all of the energy tanks in Prime 1 whereas I was missing 3 or 4 of them in Prime 2. And I finished with similar percentages (77% Prime, 78% Prime 2...I was more of a scan freak in prime 2) So maybe the appearance that Prime 1 is a bigger game is merely perception...or else that it's more straightforward of a game and that less actually occurs in it's bigger world than in Prime 2's smaller world. Still, even with a whopping six hour time difference (20.xx vs. 26.xx) Prime 2 felt smaller and shorter... I know those times royally suck, but be nice. That was without any sort of strategy guide or without any outside assistance. And I did have to leave a couple times without having time to return to an old save point and without finding a new save point and having accomplished too much to simply turn it off and revert to the last save, so there were a couple occasions on both games where I'd pause the game, turn off the TV and just let the system run (in the pause screen, which I assume the clock still ticks on) so that had really inflated my times too. Question to anyone who beat both: were your times longer in the first one or the 2nd one, what were they, and did you use a strategy guide? Keep in mind I'm asking for beat time on first run, -not- best run...(unless of course first run was best run) I played the original NES Metroid start to finish the other day in somewhere between 2 and 3 Hours. I got all the energy tanks, and all but one of the missle expansions (the one at the top of that long drop right before you face Ridley. Fool that I was, I tried to jump it, and couldn't fit into it. I suspect a bomb would've been the way to go. I didn't use a strategy guide per se, but I did get a map of all the zones off the internet and just went off of them. I figure that's no different than using the map screen in Super Metroid and the Metroid Prime games. I never did get the wave beam either I just stuck with the ice weapon. Can you imagine how confounding Super Metroid or especially the Prime games would be without the maps?!

I don't disagree that the infinte jump wouldn't have worked in Prime. I just disagree with using the Space Jump name on an item that very clearly wasn't the Space Jump. Repurposing the high-jump boots would've been more appropriate, since they served the same basic task(boosting altitude). okay, that's fair.

Well, Star Soldier. You've got an impressive collection there. Tell me: since you have the entire licensed collection of both NES and SMS games I would consider you an authority on the matter (assuming you've actually played them all). What would you say the ratio of gold, good, meh, and crap is for both systems. What are your top 10 "popular" games and top 10 "unpopular" games for each system and for the two combined? Which system do you prefer for it's software, and after your break, do you intend to do the same thing with the 16-bit systems? 800 NES games... wow. I thought I was doing not too bad at just over 100 NES games... heck, 800 is round about what I have total between all my systems, and you effectively have that tied with just one system... impressive. How many games do you estimate you have total? And how many (and what) systems is that including?

JB, I actually prefer the way the space jump works in the prime game. Can you imagine, how touchy and difficult it would be to handle that great big huge jump in a 3D world like Prime? Especially in enclosed areas? You can't see what's above you. You'd end up hitting a ceiling and dropping right to the ground, or the lava pit, or the phazon, or off the cliff....etc. While it may not be strictly purist, I still think that the jump, then jump again in mid air is so much easier to control, and more versatile than the one great big jump as you can change your direction a little bit before making the 2nd jump. Change the momentum a little bit. I don't know. Perhaps the Prime way of space jump would've been awkward in the original metroid or super metroid, but it sure is the ticket in the 3D world.

Yeah, I actually feel guilty over how much productive time was totally wasted on Prime 2. I didn't miss work, or church, or sleep over it, and my key social events (like Alpha Omega on Friday nights) didn't suffer either.....apart from that though, I pretty much spent every second sitting in front of that danged TV. Proof that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing! :-)

Schaw! He speak the truth! :-)

Fight Night Call of Duty 2 Elder Scrolls Oblivion and get an HDTV!!!!!!!!! Otherwise it's like pulling half the spark plugs off the corvette's engine and then trying to drive it! :-) Happy Birthday!

The problem with being poster 34 on a thread like this is everybody is likely to have already said everything you were gonna say. I think I will be the first to mention one or two of these though: I'm on a metroid kick right now so Super Metroid was the very first that came to mind...dang you, Inky! Others worth mentioning are: Zelda III (-----of course!----) Super Mario World Contra III Castlevania IV Act Raiser Super Mario Kart Starfox F-Zero Super Double Dragon Donkey Kong Country (series) I don't know if it'd be worth calling a "great",but I do think that Plok is underrated and should be mentioned. Same with Wolfchild. (even though Wolfchild was a multi-platform game..... besides, I think that I prefer the SNES version to the Genesis version.) -I know I'm forgetting a whole bunch of "greats" but that's what I've got for now.

From that angle, I can't decide which is better. I suppose the light and dark suits were cooler than the phazon suit, or the gravity suit. The screw attack in 3D is really nice. The idea of a Dark Samus was cool. And probably the greatest virtue of Prime 2 was the almost Zelda III-ish light world/dark world approach. Having to jump back and forth a bunch to access things in one world that you couldn't access in the other, having things be just that creepy mix of very much the same and wildly different like it was in Zelda III. And how unsettling your first excursion into Dark Aether was (considering how vulnerable to the elements you were in just the Varia suit) That all being said, Prime 2 seemed much shorter and smaller than Prime (even with Dark Aether). The level layouts seemed to be less complicated (less inspired) as well. The idea of having to have ammo for your special beams drove me nuts. To be the first metroid game without some sort of ice attack was a burn (no pun intended), the role metroids had in Prime 2 had an (oh yeah, and there were metroids too) feel to it. Like they didn't really belong, but were squeezed in just so that people wouldn't scream rape at not having them. And the music seemed really phoned in. The music in sanctuary fortress was -alright-, but I'd still say that were it not for Torvus Bog, the music in Prime 2 would have been a -total- letdown. Yes, I realise that the music in Lower Torvus is ripped from Super Metroid's Lower Brinstar (and parts of Maridia). But then again, the music from the Magnamoor Caverns in the first prime is also a rip from Super Metroid (Lower Norfair, which itself seemed to me to be a dirge that was heavily inspiried by the music in the first parts of the original Metroid (Brinstar) which was more upbeat, but still had the same pulse and and several similar melodic hooks and an almost exact percussion/bass line as Super Metroid's lower norfair) I don't know, the original Prime felt more to me like Super Metroid than Prime 2 did. By that I mean the 1st game sprawled and intertwined more like a Metroid game than the 2nd one. The first one was (or at least felt like it was) a good deal larger than the second one. You didn't need ammo to use your special weapons, and the music was a lot better. Even the visors I think were cooler in the first one. Though using light and dark energy was kinda cool in the 2nd one. There seemed to be more incidental baddies in the first one. It seemed to me that there were a lot more empty halls in the 2nd one. The space pirates seemed a lot more fluid and alive in the first one. But I do have to say that the Ing were some of the most frighteningly cool creatures I've seen in a long time (without becoming grotesque) I don't know. Combat just seemed to be more compartmentalized in the 2nd one, and I didn't like that. But maybe that's just perception. As far as the final battle goes (I won't give away too much in case people are reading this who haven't beat the game) The final battles in both games I think were about equal in terms of all around difficulty. And the final battle was longer and more drawn out in the 2nd one (with the big surprise after the Emporer Ing) A lot more happened in the final battle in Prime 2, but that being said, it still failed to manage that same epic feel that the battle with Metroid Prime did in the original. Even the music during the final battle seemed more epic in the original Prime (if mildly annoying) And then Prime's final incarnation was visually stunning. They should've made Dark Samus as visually stunning, but they didn't. I don't know. I guess when it all comes down to it, Echoes was a darker game than Prime with a darker story. The story of Prime 2 actually reads better than the story of the original prime, but the way the stories are executed makes the first one feel more natural for a metroid game (explore the world, travel between sectors) than the "get what they got and bring it back here" element that Prime 2 is ruled by. It doesn't feel like they put the same thought and the time and the love into the 2nd one that they did into the first one. But that could be preception too. Darker, gloomier environs (except for the Sanctuary Fortress that was incongruiously (spelled right?) bright and light and bustling (parts of it almost reminded me of Sonic Adventure) and music that to try to put a positive spin on it was a whole lot of ambiance, and a negative spin on it, not very musical make the 2nd one seem less fine tuned and finessed, but perhaps that's all perception too. My knee jerk reaction is to favor the first one. But despite all of its flaws and shortcomings (both perceieved and actual) Prime 2 was clearly more ambitious, and had a darker, deeper, and more meaningful storyline. So I'm back to not being sure. Ultimately, it doesn't much matter as they are both fantastic games. Gleaming gems of the game cube lineup. But I have a mind that feels more comfortable when it can rank stuff, and I'm kinda stumped here. I guess I was just curious what you guys thought. I'm holding off on voting til I can feel more comfortable with a decision. I do have to say I thought getting infected with a computer virus was cool and well executed, but I do have to ask, if Samus is not a machine, and not machine controlled, you'd think she'd still be able to raise her gun arm, -and-, why can she move her legs, but not her arms? Nevertheless, I thought it was really cool. Sometimes I'd even let myself get infected on purpose, that's how cool I thought it was.

I just beat Prime 2 about a week ago (got it for christmas 04, didn't pick it up and play it til July 06). After I beat it, I went back and fought the final battle in the original Metroid Prime. Then fought the final battle once again in Prime 2, then put Prime back in, left the impact crater, and basically just toured the world of tallon IV, making sure to visit every zone. And now I'm really stumped. Which one was the better game? There wasn't much of a difference in graphics, and virtually no difference in game play. Even the HUD, and icons (like health bonuses etc) were only barely modified for Prime 2. So the only real differences between them would be: story, venues, world layout and size, music and weapons/movement systems/suits that were not common between the two. I'm curious to know your opinions.

Actually if the original film stock has been kept in decent condition, older movies could benefit greatly from high definition remastering. Remember, they were originally intended to be shown on large movie screens, so they had to use a film stock that would take good quality pictures that could then be projected to that large size. The digital equivalent of that quality is much higher than the standard definition of DVD, and even higher than the highest definition offered by HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Some studios, Warner Brothers being among them, boast about how they are remastering their old films at resolutions up to four times greater than what HD-DVD and Blu-Ray can offer, all for the sake of preserving the quality of the original film. Television shows, made-for-TV movies, and other low-budget movies that were recorded with videotape instead of with film, are the ones that won't benefit from high definition remastering. It all comes back to what resolution was it originally done in. If less than High Def, than converting it to high def will only have a limited benefit, cause all you're doing is line doubling, esentially. It's basically the same thing than any High Def fixed pixel TV does to a 480i-480p signal. A fixed pixel display with, say 1366x768p resolution is going to be showing you 1366x768p regardless of whether the original signal is in 480i, or 1080p. If the original signal is smaller, it impliments multiplication by whatever factor is necessary to make the resolution equal 1366x768, and also deinterlaces anything in interlaced mode. Inversely, if the original image is larger, it impliments division by whatever factor is necessary to make the resolution equal 1366x768. Anyway, the point is that if you are working with native high resolution images, the transition is gonna be beautiful, but if you're working with native low resolution images, it'll still be something of an improvement, but not very much.

The metaphor is incorrect. Games are so tightly integrated w/ their technology that they get away with stuff that other media doesn't: for instance, media that play on only one manufacturer's system. SNES eclipsed NES because A. NES support gets dropped, so fewer new games come out (that's a bit chicken and egg I admit) and B. the new game experiences are different than what came before. For your metaphor to work, you'd have to have almost all games coming out on both NES and SNES, and it didn't happen that way. (And points to the only way HD movies would occur in any kind of timely fashion: if the new movies come out on HD but NOT DVD. And I don't think that's going to happen.) Beta wasn't superior, because they didn't offer long enough recording times early enough. It may be superior (though not by THAT much), but as we've discussed, picture quality is only one among MANY factors for people to choose on, and not even so important amoing that. And didn't sell all that well. Yes, so the question is, will it do what DVD did to VHS, or will it do what Laserdisc did to VHS? (And you have to ask yourself, why did DVD succeed where Laserdisc failed? Looking at Wikipedia, it offered alternate sound tracks and random access and a better picture... but it had a poor form factor and required disk swaps for a single movie... that's a lot worse than DVDs sometimes putting extra feature on disk 2... ) The format war is gonna hurt. See, DVD required upgrades (thanks to macrovision, even more than it should have!) but beause DVDs offered subtitles, commentary tracks, bonus footage, looked better on a bookshelf, and didn't inherently degrade with use, people took the plunge. I don't think people will take the plunge to HD media until the players are about as cheap as DVDs were a few years ago... and then, only if one player can play almost all movies in general release (i.e. one standard wins, or one player plays both, or movies come out in both.) Okay, okay. My analogy might not have been perfect, but it got the point across. I guess that's what counts! And you're also absolutely correct in that there were a myriad of factors that contributed to the rise of DVD, and that significantly improved picture quality was only one of many, and perhaps not even the most important. Of course it has occured to me that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray could -both- flop. The reason I'm optimistic for them though is that their timing is so good. Right as HDTV is beginning to work it's way into the mainstream, and 1080p sets (which are the only ones that will truely "optimize" the two new mediums) HD-DVD and Blu-Ray hit the scene. I think that they will succeed because people who have these TVs with the capability for HD are gonna want a removable media that will also utilize HD. Otherwise, in order to get HD, you're at the mercy of the broadcasters as to what you're gonna watch, but with VHS, DVD, Laserdisc etc, you could choose what to watch, what not to watch, and could watch it over and over and over again to your hearts desire. Well, we have nothing of that sort in HD. And as HD begins to come into it's own, that "niche" will -need- filled, and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray will be the one to fill the bill. Now, certainly, just as HD got a sluggish start, and to be fair, so did the original DVD, I harbor no illusions that this will be an overnight success. Especially when you factor in that we're gonna have a pretty nasty format war unless one side dies off, or a dual-format option is made available. But there is a genuine need for truly High Def removable media....whether it be HD-DVD, or Blu-Ray, or failing both, whatever rises from their ashes. We -will- have a popular and successful High Def medium.....after the gun smoke clears and the prices go down....whenever that is.

Riiiiiight. Pass the Preparation H, already, because I so need it. My prediction is that neither internet nor optical disc will be the de facto standard for high-def content distribution. On demand video from cable companies will. You heard it here first. then you couldnt own anything... that would never happen. and i disagree.. dvds will never feel vhs ish... even with the quality being different, the jump in quality isnt that much better , and things that just made life easier such as no rewind, chapter select, etc... are in dvd and the new formats.. so what exactly would make the dvd feel THAT outdated? Its like going from CD rom to GD rom on the dreamcast... ooOOoo (sarcasm). .... sigh. In the same way that SNES does not feel exactly like NES, you're right, DVD will never feel like VHS. No matter how outdated and eclipsed it gets, it'll always be -significantly- (unless you're half blind or have a TV with a blurry (I.e. dying) picture tube...also known as CRT ) better. However, in the way that NES once felt like the pinnacle of gaming technology, and then felt old and cheap and limited in light of the SNES, which then felt like the pinnacle of gaming until it in turn felt like it was old and cheap and limited in light of the PS1 etc etc etc. DVD -will- eventually go down the same road as VHS. Lets simplify and just look at VHS, Laserdisc, and DVD. First there was VHS, then there was Laserdisc, and then there was DVD. Despite Beta being superior, VHS was -the- standard of home video technology. When Laserdisc came out, it decidedly outshone VHS in terms of video and sound quality, and then it felt like the pinnacle of home A/V...until DVD came out, that is. Now DVD is the undisputed champion of home A/V media. And will remain so until the next significant improvement, which HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will provide. So, while DVD will always be superior to VHS, it will someday occupy the same relative position in A/V quality and regard that VHS currently occupies, and in that sense, Yes, DVD will eventually feel VHS-ish...it's an absolute certainty. Atari Jr, you may not notice this though, as I suspect that in 2020, you will still be popping in your VHS on your CRT (that's picture tube, by the way! ) watching the flickery, grainy, interlaced picture and going "ooOOoo (sarcasm)." But thank you for your sarcasm. I like sarcasm. I collect it and convert it to energy, and then use it to power my clock radio. So thank you. Without your sarcasm I wouldn't have enough power to keep my clock going overnight, and then my alarm wouldn't go off, and then I'd be late for work. Cheers! while i understand what you are saying, the impovements from vhs to dvd make the vhs feel old... to be honest, even when the new formats are out, since i dont have an hd tv, the dvd wont feel old to me.. these new formats are different this time around as it wont really improve anything unless you upgrade everything else along with it. Its not like a snes which when i put it on my same tv looked better than my nes... Actually, Atari Jr, you are absolutely correct when it comes to the picture quality of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray on an old analog TV. There will be no real difference unless viewed on a TV capable of 720p or 1080i, and wont be optimized unless hooked up to a TV capable of 1080p. There you are right. If you're using a 480i TV, or even a 480p TV for that matter, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to upgrade. But, to be fair, blu-ray is supposed to have the storage capacity enough to support special features that are unthinkable on regular DVD. Now what that's worth, I guess, is up to the individual. But if that sort of thing excites you, then an upgrade wouldn't be -totally- worthless. Yet, I still maintain that DVD is much better than VHS. Unless compared on a really really crappy TV, or on something smaller than a 20", the difference is night and day. On a TV smaller than 20, everything is so compressed that everything looks crisp and sharp no matter what, and a lot of little details are lost. I will concede that if your main set is smaller than 20" then you will lose some of the picture quality differences between the two technologies, but on any set larger than 20" it's glaringly apparent...even on an old analog set. My 1990 30" Toshiba, for instance, 4:3, 480i, VHS=blah!, DVD=wow. Even on this borderline sucky 1999 27" Samsung I used to have, the difference between the two was night and day also. And even if there were no picture quality difference, DVD would still be superior cause of it's more portible, convenient form factor, and it's accessibility (menus, ability to track back and forth like a CD) Probably the best way to compare DVD to VHS is to compare CD to Audio Cassette. The CD is super clean, and crisp and clear and has "higher resolution" audio. The Audio cassette is nowhere near as clean, and also suffers from tape hiss, plus you have to fastfoward or rewind to get anywhere. Well, that tape hiss phenomenon applies to the video side of things too. It manifests itself in that fuzzy junk in the picture. Also, colors tend to be more washed and inconsistent, not to mention duller. And as far as resolution. DVD utilizes every line available in the 480i medium (480p if set to progressive scan) VHS doesn't even come close. Heck, even SVHS or laser disc don't use them all. Again, on a super small TV, you may miss some of that, but even on fairly crappy sets, there's a pretty noticeable difference.

Riiiiiight. Pass the Preparation H, already, because I so need it. My prediction is that neither internet nor optical disc will be the de facto standard for high-def content distribution. On demand video from cable companies will. You heard it here first. then you couldnt own anything... that would never happen. and i disagree.. dvds will never feel vhs ish... even with the quality being different, the jump in quality isnt that much better , and things that just made life easier such as no rewind, chapter select, etc... are in dvd and the new formats.. so what exactly would make the dvd feel THAT outdated? Its like going from CD rom to GD rom on the dreamcast... ooOOoo (sarcasm). .... sigh. In the same way that SNES does not feel exactly like NES, you're right, DVD will never feel like VHS. No matter how outdated and eclipsed it gets, it'll always be -significantly- (unless you're half blind or have a TV with a blurry (I.e. dying) picture tube...also known as CRT ) better. However, in the way that NES once felt like the pinnacle of gaming technology, and then felt old and cheap and limited in light of the SNES, which then felt like the pinnacle of gaming until it in turn felt like it was old and cheap and limited in light of the PS1 etc etc etc. DVD -will- eventually go down the same road as VHS. Lets simplify and just look at VHS, Laserdisc, and DVD. First there was VHS, then there was Laserdisc, and then there was DVD. Despite Beta being superior, VHS was -the- standard of home video technology. When Laserdisc came out, it decidedly outshone VHS in terms of video and sound quality, and then it felt like the pinnacle of home A/V...until DVD came out, that is. Now DVD is the undisputed champion of home A/V media. And will remain so until the next significant improvement, which HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will provide. So, while DVD will always be superior to VHS, it will someday occupy the same relative position in A/V quality and regard that VHS currently occupies, and in that sense, Yes, DVD will eventually feel VHS-ish...it's an absolute certainty. Atari Jr, you may not notice this though, as I suspect that in 2020, you will still be popping in your VHS on your CRT (that's picture tube, by the way! ) watching the flickery, grainy, interlaced picture and going "ooOOoo (sarcasm)." But thank you for your sarcasm. I like sarcasm. I collect it and convert it to energy, and then use it to power my clock radio. So thank you. Without your sarcasm I wouldn't have enough power to keep my clock going overnight, and then my alarm wouldn't go off, and then I'd be late for work. Cheers!

Well, perhaps right away it wont. Except DVD will feel kinda VHS-ish once the winner of the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray war becomes truly established. Then you'll probably feel the burn.

I think it depends on context. I look at the Cineza projector at the store and think: "Wow! That's 'Awesome'!" and when I look at the 42" LCD flat panel, I think: "Wow, that's 'beautiful'!" It really depends on context who wins, but my knee jerk reaction is to favor the beautiful one over the awesome one. But that's just me. They're both winners in my book.

Interesting links, Kisrael. The sony one doesn't surprise me in the least. I fear doom for the PS3 (and hope I'm wrong). Plus, Sony is kinda getting it's booty kicked in the TV world right now too. They do have the best available analog CRT, but in this day and age, that only matters so much. Sony has pulled or is pulling out of plasma due to production costs, and I suspect they wont be in LCD for too much longer for the same reason (they can't compete with LG who makes their own LCD and Plasma displays because Sony doesn't make their own plasma and (I believe) LCD displays either.) It wont leave them with all that many products once CRT goes away. Alright, I'll concede that probably none of us here are audio or videophiles in the sense that those guys are. But in an odd way, that kinda strengthens my case. Even among the "non-videophiles", I still doubt you'll find someone who thinks it's got the "best" picture. Just the biggest.

Actually, if memory serves, in the non-US version M Bison was not called Vega. He was called Balrog. If I'm mistaken, smack me. But if I'm not mistaken than he still got his bosses mixed up. However, that clears things up for me. When he was saying red looked just like Vega, I was racking my brain trying to remeber where a vega style character appeared in the game, but if they had said M Bison it would've triggered it right away.

Too bad no sequel, huh? Cool find on the article...I think I'll go play Gunstar Heroes now.

I agree that as far as flexibility, projos are great! I do however believe they take a backseat to flatpanel as far as flexibility. Silver medal to be sure, but not the gold. Sure there are a multitude of setups where a projo would work wonderfully and a flat panel would be less than ideal if possible at all. But there are even more instances when the vice versa is true. Also, even in a pitch black room, a front projo isn't quite gonna be able to match the brightness, contrast and color intensity of a flat panel and the pixel grid is gonna be a lot more noticeable. Then again, a projector gives you a much bigger screen, they are usually portable whereas flat panels seldomly are, and they are about the same price for a 720p LCD model as a 42" LCD or Plasma, and about the same price as a 23" LCD if you go for an EDTV LCD or DLP Projo. So you get a lot more bang for the buck with a front projo, that's for danged sure. The best in the industry, to be exact. I just doubt a videophile is gonna choose it as the best picture available. If I had the money I would upgrade my current TV setups (which are not at all bad. I'm more blessed than many, and I thank God for it all. I most definitely can't complain.) But what I currently have is a 65" CRT rear-pro HDTV ready 1080i series Mitsubishi circa 2000 in the basement theatre. All my other sets are standard analog 4:3 CRT. I have a 30" Toshiba circa 1990 in the living room. (which in all honesty probably has the best picture I've ever seen on an analog 480i CRT TV...nowhere even close to HDTV, to be sure. But certainly still a joy to look at anyway.) 27" Mitsubishi's in the bedroom (circa 1993) and in the computer room (circa 1991). I have a 32" Sony circa 1992 (or 1994, I can't remember) in the garage that almost never gets used cause the green color gun is getting weak in the CRT (still looks fairly good...good enough to watch, but faces are beginning to develop a slight purple hint, and green things like grass are starting to turn brown) I have a 1991 20" Sony in the recording studio and a 20" Toshiba circa approx 1995/1996 sitting in reserve. If money weren't an issue, I would get a 37" LCD flatpanel in the living room, move the theatre out to the garage and replace the 65" Mitsu with a Sony Cineza LCD front projector with Da-Lite screen. I would put like a 23" or 26" LCD in the bedroom, or even this 30" LG 16:9 HDTV CRT set (much much much cheaper), replace the 17" CRT Computer monitors in my computer room with 20 or 23" LCD Flatpanels and have them hookup so I can use them as either a TV or a monitor. I would do the same in the recording studio, only I'd probably go bigger, like 26" or 32". And then take all the TV's I have and donate them either to people I know who need TVs, or to the church, or to a christian charity, or some combination thereof. (Assuming it hasn't crapped out by then, the 30" Toshiba will be the last to go.) That's way in the future though. The only two of those that I actually plan on doing any time soon is moving the theatre out to the garage (so I can utilize that large basement room for my recording studio instead of this little tiny guest room that it's in.) only I can't afford to upgrade to the projo, so I'll keep the mitsu for now. And I do plan on getting that 30" HD 16:9 CRT, but that'll go in the living room, not the bedroom. Other than that, all those plans are a long way off. Way past the 2009 cutoff. So I'll have to consider my converter box options as well.

Well, I dunno about that. It wouldn't be able to compete with the N64 in 3D, but in 2D it should be CAPABLE of putting both the N64 and the PS1 over it's knee and spankin' 'em. With all due resepect: How do you figure?!

I respectfully disagree. And concerning "to do it *right*" Sure you can do a video projector on the cheap, but you may find yourself wanting. Also, if you don't mount the projo on the screen but put it on a shelf or a table, all you have to do is slightly nudge it and the picture skews...granted it's about as easy to fix as it is to mess up, but it's still something that's a pain to mess with. And the lower you place it, the easier it's gonna be to block it. Plus, if you put it in the middle of the room on a table or a stand theres the issue of wires hanging all over the place that can be tripped on, stepped on, torn or cut, chewed by pets etc. If you step on or trip over the wire, you could pull the projector and send it crashing to the floor, or rip out an input, or any number of other things. And run the risk of bodily injury. Not to mention the de-beautification of your room by said wires. So yes, it can be done easy, but even at it's least invasive, it is by far the most invasive way to watch TV. You have to keep things dark, you have to not let anything get in the way, you have to put the projector halfway acros the room and you have to blast light halfway across your room. Even a big rear projection set can be scrunched into a corner and forgotten when it's not on.