GC was fine if you owned another system to push you through the doughts.  IDK if you've noticed or not but all the people praising how awesome the GC was all owned another system.

No gamer was satisfied w/ just a GC last gen and that's why it's considered a poor system.  You can pretty much apply the same criteria to any system and say it's never failed.

jrhawk42

Wait wait wait.  So because people want to play the games on another system, that means the one they have now sucks?  That doesn't make any sense!  I got my GC because I expected to be wowed by N, and I was.  Then, I wanted to play Katamari, Burnout, etc. so I got a PS2.  When Halo 2 came out, I got an Xbox and played that.  I also got Half-life 2 for my PC amung other PC games too.  So does that mean all of the systems sucked because I had to get all 3?  No, it just means I like to have variety and play all the good games.

[QUOTE="Brown52"][QUOTE="Iyethar"]

[QUOTE="Brown52"]The fact that the vast majority of people buying pokemon games are probably 12years old or less makes you at an older age immature.Arcanine_88

1. That's not a fact.

2. Questioning his maturity based on which videogame he likes to play is an immature act.

Yes it is. Have fun trading your pokemons with other 12 year olds.

I happen to have lots of friends that's over the age of 12, and they all play Pokemon, they all got Diamond/Pearl. So your facts isn't really a fact.

Basically, my entire school, which is a University (just so you know), went out and got this game.  I guess everyone here is a kid :S...

No, you are immature because you enjoy playing the same type of entertainment that most 12 years olds enjoy. Brown52

The one that last the longest.  That one will probably be...

***Spoilers***

The one that does not finish in second or third

[QUOTE="SA--X"]Wait, did anyone notice that we are comparing AA games, what about the AAA?Huxley_00

The Gamecube had 19 AAA games

The Xbox had 40 AAA games

the PS3 had 61 AAA games  

1. Can I get a link, that's mostly the reason why I asked for.

2.  Why didn't you just say that in the first place?  Look at those numbers!

[QUOTE="SA--X"]

I got 60 years.

144 "second of movie" * 3600 (60 seconds times 60 minutes to equal 3600 seconds an hour) = 518400 "hours of work"

518400 "hours" / 24 "hours in a day" = 21600

21600 "days of work" / 365 "days in a year" = 59.1 "years of work"

I think the math is a bit off. So let's reverse this. How long does it take pixar to make a movie? 8 years? Let's go with that ( A long time I know, but better than 60!!!)

8 "years of work" * 365 = 2920 "days of work"

2920 "days" / 24 "hours in a day" = 121.6

121.6 "hours" / 3600 "seconds in an hour" = 0.03 "seconds of film per second".

So if they were to render a movie over the span of eight years exactly (non-stop), it would be making 3/100 of a second of film of a second every second in real life.

amiright?

SergeantSnitch

2.5 hour long movie = 9000 seconds

144 hours x 9000 seconds = some big number

 WOW, that's stupid.  My mind tried to block out the dumb by making me think the allotted time was larger to compensate for the still excrutiatingly large work time :lol:.

I got 60 years.

 144 "second of movie" * 3600 (60 seconds times 60 minutes to equal 3600 seconds an hour) = 518400 "hours of work"

 518400 "hours" / 24 "hours in a day" = 21600

21600 "days of work" / 365 "days in a year" = 59.1 "years of work"

I think the math is a bit off.  So let's reverse this.  How long does it take pixar to make a movie?  8 years?  Let's go with that ( A long time I know, but better than 60!!!)

8 "years of work" * 365 = 2920 "days of work"

2920 "days" / 24 "hours in a day" = 121.6

121.6 "hours" / 3600 "seconds in an hour" = 0.03 "seconds of film per second".

So if they were to render a movie over the span of eight years exactly (non-stop), it would be making 3/100 of a second of film of a second every second in real life.

amiright?