Decent Wii footage from Leipzig

[CPUWIZ]

Wasnt the ps3 playable? I thought games like Warhawk *or whatever its called* were playable at least, cause I remember reporters complaining about the last minute implemented control... how would they know how it controlled if they didnt play it?

 

In addition to n8littlefield's statement, Nintendo not only has said all that but is expected to release their price and release date info on the 14th of this month (i believe thats the date, dont quote me).

 

Yes, all PS3 kiosks were playable, they had a lot of them. Unlike the nonsense Nintendo pulled with that 4 hour waiting crap, I am glad I didn't stand in that line now.

[Starscream]

Fun always trumps graphics. If the cost of the graphics is so prohibitive the game isn't fun, then why bother with super-realitic graphics? Hell, you're talking to a forum of people who play Ataris, Intellivisions, O2s, and Colecovisions despite the availability of modern, graphically-superior consoles! And the games were still more fun back then!

 

How come I can always find great looking games that are fun? And honestly, what exactly is a shitty looking game? I can't think of 1 for a long, long time. I think the whole problem here is making do with what you are offered. I have seen so many stupid posts about the 360/PS3 only being about graphics but the wii will be so fun. Everyone who buys a wii knows they are settling in many departments, yet they want to defend that whole decision for some reason or another. So let's just go for all of the things the wii won't be capable of and make them sound bad. What kind of logic is that? I have read so many times that the wii will have graphics as good as the PS3/360. Does everyone really think if they talk nothing but bullshit, it will magically, with the help of the wiimote, come true? My 97 TA runs high 12's stock. If I keep telling you it runs low 11's, all ya need to do is come to the track to see the truth. Same situation. But, games aren't about graphics right? Unless you aren't buying a 360/PS3 and are choosing the other one, then graphics become very important - to bash.

 

For me, price is important as well. I don't want to be paying for amazing HD capabilities that I have absolutely no plans of using. I own no moden console, and had plans to keep it that way. Sony and Microsoft offer more "fun" in the same way that Doom III isn't. (Apologies to Doom III fans, but I found it pretty dull. Like work rather than play.) The Wii changed my mind about the "next generation" stuff.

 

The new control scheme of the Wii is very appealing. It looks like "fun". The games look like fun. But Nintendo isn't going to get a dime of my money unless the console is around $200. The Wii may not have HD graphics, but that's okay. Again, I have no plans to get an HD set. So its low price makes it more attractive to me despite any perceived or real difference in graphical quality. Thus history repeats: TurboGrafx, Jaguar, Sega Master System, Colecovision, etc. were all beat out by graphically "inferior" systems.

 

You ever hear the saying, "Fast, cheap, quality, pick any two?" Nintendo bucked conventional wisdom and made different tradeoffs than Sony and Microsoft made. I'm betting that Nintendo's decision is about to pay off.

 

Nintendo have done nothing new in this situation. All they ever do is reskin the old and sell it as new. The GB line was almost completely unchanged for years, but would be introduced with color, a built in headphone jack, etc. All reskins. Like the GC to wii. This isn't wrong at all, I mean Apple does it and it works. But don't pat them on the back for it.

 

Yup many graphically superior systems were seeing the taillights of the inferior systems. Why? Games. Plain and simple, games. The GC did poorly because of it's limited library. Argue with me all you want, but common sense says if system Y has 2000 games and system Z has 400, system Y has a broader gameset, a much greater chance of having more appealing games to anyone, and much better chance of having many games that you can't get anywhere else.

 

I won't comment on price. That is too personal of an opinion and has many influencing factors. Same with fun. But, you already noted that and I agree.

 

The controller. I may be wrong, but ya wanna know what I think? Probably not, but I'll tell ya anyways I think Nintendo has been fooled a little. The success of the DS has them thinking that the touchscreen has made all the difference. I look at the games and I think "well no shit, no wonder this thing flys off shelves" I don't have one, have no interest in ever getting one, and the touchscreen means nothing to me, but who can ever deny what a killer game library that things got?! The wii will work great if the same formula is achieved, but if it's just this controller thingy, forget it. The controller, so far, can't really do anything my thumbs can't. The games so far aren't anything I can't play better elsewhere. Too early to tell, but I know I wanna play Spiderman on the PS3/360 instead of the wii. Games on rails suck.

 

 

*shrug* Everyone has different tastes, I suppose. Me? I think it all looks great. Especially the sports games, and I HATE sports games!

 

I think it's interesting that the sports games are so appealing. When I ask myself why, I come up with one primary reason: You get to actually play the game rather than hitting buttons on a controller. Rather than imagining you're in a baseball game (boring, I hate watching sports) I can actually swing the bat! Rather than mashing the swing-o-meter button on the controller at the right time, I can actually hit the golf ball! That's what's appealing to me.

 

But this has all been done so many times over the years. This isn't new. At least my baseball bat controller for the SNES(?) was shaped like a bat. I also don't buy the "immersive" gameplay because of the wand. This could be because I have played Steel Battalions. That's immersive. Holding a little rectangle box isn't immersive, unless you are changing channels.

 

I am glad neither of us has changed eithers mind at all and that all we really did was waste some webspace But I do appeciate you responding with your own thoughts and not just retelling what ya read on the net.

[sega saturn x]

And =/= means doesn't equal just so you know.

 

Where?

 

The only one I know is != which means not equal.

I've just seen it used around the internet multiple times.

[Atari Master]

Fun always trumps graphics. If the cost of the graphics is so prohibitive the game isn't fun, then why bother with super-realitic graphics? Hell, you're talking to a forum of people who play Ataris, Intellivisions, O2s, and Colecovisions despite the availability of modern, graphically-superior consoles! And the games were still more fun back then!

 

How come I can always find great looking games that are fun? And honestly, what exactly is a shitty looking game? I can't think of 1 for a long, long time. I think the whole problem here is making do with what you are offered. I have seen so many stupid posts about the 360/PS3 only being about graphics but the wii will be so fun. Everyone who buys a wii knows they are settling in many departments, yet they want to defend that whole decision for some reason or another. So let's just go for all of the things the wii won't be capable of and make them sound bad. What kind of logic is that? I have read so many times that the wii will have graphics as good as the PS3/360. Does everyone really think if they talk nothing but bullshit, it will magically, with the help of the wiimote, come true? My 97 TA runs high 12's stock. If I keep telling you it runs low 11's, all ya need to do is come to the track to see the truth. Same situation. But, games aren't about graphics right? Unless you aren't buying a 360/PS3 and are choosing the other one, then graphics become very important - to bash.

 

For me, price is important as well. I don't want to be paying for amazing HD capabilities that I have absolutely no plans of using. I own no moden console, and had plans to keep it that way. Sony and Microsoft offer more "fun" in the same way that Doom III isn't. (Apologies to Doom III fans, but I found it pretty dull. Like work rather than play.) The Wii changed my mind about the "next generation" stuff.

 

The new control scheme of the Wii is very appealing. It looks like "fun". The games look like fun. But Nintendo isn't going to get a dime of my money unless the console is around $200. The Wii may not have HD graphics, but that's okay. Again, I have no plans to get an HD set. So its low price makes it more attractive to me despite any perceived or real difference in graphical quality. Thus history repeats: TurboGrafx, Jaguar, Sega Master System, Colecovision, etc. were all beat out by graphically "inferior" systems.

 

You ever hear the saying, "Fast, cheap, quality, pick any two?" Nintendo bucked conventional wisdom and made different tradeoffs than Sony and Microsoft made. I'm betting that Nintendo's decision is about to pay off.

 

Nintendo have done nothing new in this situation. All they ever do is reskin the old and sell it as new. The GB line was almost completely unchanged for years, but would be introduced with color, a built in headphone jack, etc. All reskins. Like the GC to wii. This isn't wrong at all, I mean Apple does it and it works. But don't pat them on the back for it.

 

Yup many graphically superior systems were seeing the taillights of the inferior systems. Why? Games. Plain and simple, games. The GC did poorly because of it's limited library. Argue with me all you want, but common sense says if system Y has 2000 games and system Z has 400, system Y has a broader gameset, a much greater chance of having more appealing games to anyone, and much better chance of having many games that you can't get anywhere else.

 

I won't comment on price. That is too personal of an opinion and has many influencing factors. Same with fun. But, you already noted that and I agree.

 

The controller. I may be wrong, but ya wanna know what I think? Probably not, but I'll tell ya anyways I think Nintendo has been fooled a little. The success of the DS has them thinking that the touchscreen has made all the difference. I look at the games and I think "well no shit, no wonder this thing flys off shelves" I don't have one, have no interest in ever getting one, and the touchscreen means nothing to me, but who can ever deny what a killer game library that things got?! The wii will work great if the same formula is achieved, but if it's just this controller thingy, forget it. The controller, so far, can't really do anything my thumbs can't. The games so far aren't anything I can't play better elsewhere. Too early to tell, but I know I wanna play Spiderman on the PS3/360 instead of the wii. Games on rails suck.

 

 

*shrug* Everyone has different tastes, I suppose. Me? I think it all looks great. Especially the sports games, and I HATE sports games!

 

I think it's interesting that the sports games are so appealing. When I ask myself why, I come up with one primary reason: You get to actually play the game rather than hitting buttons on a controller. Rather than imagining you're in a baseball game (boring, I hate watching sports) I can actually swing the bat! Rather than mashing the swing-o-meter button on the controller at the right time, I can actually hit the golf ball! That's what's appealing to me.

 

But this has all been done so many times over the years. This isn't new. At least my baseball bat controller for the SNES(?) was shaped like a bat. I also don't buy the "immersive" gameplay because of the wand. This could be because I have played Steel Battalions. That's immersive. Holding a little rectangle box isn't immersive, unless you are changing channels.

 

I am glad neither of us has changed eithers mind at all and that all we really did was waste some webspace But I do appeciate you responding with your own thoughts and not just retelling what ya read on the net.

 

Um, the Wii is more powerfull than the GC. Not just by a small margin, either. It's not a Gamecube with a new skin.

[Starscream]

 

What exactly is Nintendo not telling other than the exact suggested retail price and exact launch date?

 

Virtual console? Price of VC games? Online play? Online setup (cumbersome friend codes or a real setup)? What type of multiplayer features will be available?

 

I mean for a system that is really about 2 months away, it would be nice to know what you are buying, no? If ,IMO, it was a very well thoughout process, details could have been released a long time ago. Methinks, besides the already confirmed no 3rd party online games until almost spring of next year, it's a scramble at this point to see what exactly can happen by release.

[CPUWIZ]

Um, the Wii is more powerfull than the GC. Not just by a small margin, either. It's not a Gamecube with a new skin.

 

[AtariJr]

 

What exactly is Nintendo not telling other than the exact suggested retail price and exact launch date?

 

Virtual console? Price of VC games? Online play? Online setup (cumbersome friend codes or a real setup)? What type of multiplayer features will be available?

 

I mean for a system that is really about 2 months away, it would be nice to know what you are buying, no? If ,IMO, it was a very well thoughout process, details could have been released a long time ago. Methinks, besides the already confirmed no 3rd party online games until almost spring of next year, it's a scramble at this point to see what exactly can happen by release.

no offense.. but last i checked sony hasnt announced anything thing about the ps3 to psp dload service either (as far as pricing and what not). Like i said in the previous post, im sure a lot of that will be explained in the next few days (Wii pricing on system and online content). As far as keeping secrets, every console maker I can think of keeps secrets about their console soon before launch including Sony. Actually the thing about Sony I dont like sometimes, is that they seem like they are giving you a bunch of info but alot of it ends up being false, like the power of the sysems (ps2 vs dreamcast, ps3 vs 360). As far as Nintendo going an extra mile on being secretive ill totally agree, but there really isnt much we dont know now about the Wii that we dont know about the ps3. Launch date, online structure, pricing, and dload service pricing is all a mystery on both systems to my knowledge. I mean all we know about Ps3 online gaming is that its free, and we know nothing about its dload service and its costs. We know the controllers now on both systems, and the specs (roughly) on both systems, so i guess im a bit lost as to what you are referring to as the missing info on Wii?

 

PS: some of these posts are getting hella long lol

Edited September 6, 2006 by AtariJr

[+remowilliams]

Um, the Wii is more powerfull than the GC. Not just by a small margin, either. It's not a Gamecube with a new skin.

That NDA making you twitch? I know the feeling, I've been under my share. LOL

 

All forum worship lunacy aside, the world will know the truth soon enough.

 

While it remains to be seen how much the wiimote will engage you (or provide decent control) in a game over a regular controller, I've got to go with a previous sentiment and say that immersion - thy name is Steel Battalion!

[figgler]

And =/= means doesn't equal just so you know.

 

Where?

 

The only one I know is != which means not equal.

I've just seen it used around the internet multiple times.

 

If you were to write this it would make more sense, just that it doesn't translate well to typing. Think of an = sign with a slash righ through the middle.

 

 

Oh, and this thread is more pointless than any other speculative thread I've seen yet.

 

No one knows what's the gaming climate will be 2 years from now and frankly the consumers that shape it will not be AA forum posters who have nothing else to do but play vids and then talk about them all day on the web, constantly theorising about whether HD, motion sensing, or online structure will be the deciding blow

 

So long as my system of choice is successful enough that I can amass a library of 50-60 good games over its lifespan, I couldn't care less what else happens or who waits in what line to buy what. I mean, who cares what someone else buys?

Edited September 6, 2006 by figgler

[+remowilliams]

Oh, and this thread is more pointless than any other speculative thread I've seen yet.

Now that's saying alot!

 

I fail to understand why otherwise seemingly intelligent people seem to be intensely trying to prove the old adage that 'if you repeat something enough times, it becomes true'

 

It's really ruined the S/N ratio in many ways here.

Edited September 6, 2006 by remowilliams

[sega saturn x]

I mean, who cares what someone else buys?

Half the internet evidently.

Um, the Wii is more powerfull than the GC. Not just by a small margin, either. It's not a Gamecube with a new skin.

Ummmmm....have you seen the wiis games?

[jbanes]

If the cost of the graphics is so prohibitive the game isn't fun

What the hell are you talking about. I can't think of a gme ever where having good graphcis actually made the game less fun.

Shows what you know:

No you haven't magically become an expert game player, you've discovered Stargunner's terrible flaw, the computer AI. It's hard to believe, but for once the lack of game difficulty has killed an otherwise beautiful game. [...] So what went wrong? According to an interview with Alex, he was asked to cram in extra enemy graphics into the already full game code. Want to take a guess on where he found the extra room?

In any case, consider a game like Super Mario 64. Better graphics can improve it's look, but changing them to be ultra-realistic (the "goal" of the constant march of graphical improvements) would actually kill the game's playability. Once Mario looks like a real person in a real world, all the cool jumps and buttbombs would look utterly ridiculous. So it stays with cartoony graphics, because cartoony graphics help make the game. Cool volumetric fog and other realistic effects can't help those cartoony graphics look better. They'd just destroy the flavor.

 

How come I can always find great looking games that are fun? And honestly, what exactly is a shitty looking game?

I have no idea. I certainly haven't been promoting the idea that the Wii's graphics are "shitty" as you put it. In fact, I believe I said... (insert flashback sequence)

 

Red Steel's lighting effects were similarly impressive, showing that the Wii is quite capable of Radiosity effects. Meaning that it can go toe-to-toe with the 360's graphics should it become necessary.

 

Nintendo have done nothing new in this situation. All they ever do is reskin the old and sell it as new. The GB line was almost completely unchanged for years, but would be introduced with color, a built in headphone jack, etc. All reskins.

I had a GB. I have a GBC. I've played both GBA and Nintendo DS. They are anything BUT reskins. Each system represented a major improvement in hardware over the previous generation. Stuff like the GBA Micro and DS Lite are reskins, but they're not sold as new generations.

 

Yup many graphically superior systems were seeing the taillights of the inferior systems. Why? Games. Plain and simple, games.

Yes, thank you for agreeing with me. Fun games are more important than whizbang graphics.

 

The GC did poorly because of it's limited library.

The GC did poorly because the games it had were not compelling enough to make people purchase the system. The N64 launched after the Playstation with all of... lemme count... two games. It was an instant success.

 

Argue with me all you want, but common sense says if system Y has 2000 games and system Z has 400, system Y has a broader gameset, a much greater chance of having more appealing games to anyone, and much better chance of having many games that you can't get anywhere else.

If that's common sense, then common sense is wrong. Market experience has shown that you can have a MASSIVE library and still fail. The Odyssey^2 comes to mind. (Sorry, O2 fans.) It had a huge library. But the fact that a large part of that library was terrible in comparison to the 2600 meant that it did poorly in the U.S. market. The O2s didn't start flying off the shelf until K.C. Munchkin provided a better PacMan than the 2600. The K.C. series thus became what the marketdriods call a Killer App.

 

Nowhere are killer apps more important than with Video Game Systems. The 2600 had Space Invaders. The Intellivision had Baseball. The Nintendo/SNES/N64 had Mario (and later Killer Instinct). The Genesis had Sonic. The Playstation had Riiiiiiiidge Racer and Crash Bandicoot. The XBox had Halo. Sensing a pattern yet?

 

The success of the DS has them thinking that the touchscreen has made all the difference. I look at the games and I think "well no shit, no wonder this thing flys off shelves" I don't have one, have no interest in ever getting one, and the touchscreen means nothing to me, but who can ever deny what a killer game library that things got?!

You can't have the killer library without the touchscreen. Some of the most popular games demand it. (For better or worse.) Games like Brain Age, Trauma Center, Nintendogs, and Polarium are just as much part of the system's success as the action games. And even the action games make ample use of the touch screen to improve gameplay. Metroid and Mario Kart immediately pop to mind. The former uses the stylus like a mouse, while the latter mainly demands the availability of the second screen for the map. (Though many of its features like the Icon Creator make full use of the Stylus.)

 

The extra functionality the system provides is heavily used by nearly every DS game. Take away the second screen and touchscreen features, and you won't have much of a library left.

 

The wii will work great if the same formula is achieved, but if it's just this controller thingy, forget it. The controller, so far, can't really do anything my thumbs can't.

Your thumbs can swing a tennis racket? Aim a gun? Putt a golf ball? I sincerely doubt it.

 

What you mean to say is that the same features can be achieved with different control schemes without the Wii controller. Which is true. What's also true is that analog joysticks SUCK as FPS controls, and that swing-o-meters suck, and that button sword-play SUCKS, and that screen cursors instead of lightguns experience MAJOR SUCKAGE, and that...

 

*cough*

 

Sorry, got a little carried away.

 

But this has all been done so many times over the years. This isn't new. At least my baseball bat controller for the SNES(?) was shaped like a bat.

Nothing is created in a vacuum. Of course there was similar stuff before it. It's new in that:

 

1. It's all kinds of different controllers packed into one. (e.g. Lightgun, sword, golf club, bat, tennis racket, bow and arrow, etc.)

 

2. Nintendo is investing the FULL resources of their company and all their partners to make fun games with it.

 

3. CPUWiz is impressed.

 

 

I also don't buy the "immersive" gameplay because of the wand. This could be because I have played Steel Battalions. That's immersive.

Big control panel, little motion sensing device. Same basic idea, different uses. I think it would be hilarious to see you play tennis with your Steel Battalion controller. Similarly, it would be hilarious if someone tried to play Steel Battalion with a rinky dink motion wand. That would be like... controlling KITT with a 2600 joystick!

 

(Don't laugh too hard. That was actually in an episode of Knight Rider.)

 

But I do appeciate you responding with your own thoughts and not just retelling what ya read on the net.

Ditto.

[BydoEmpire]

Kitt's radar was also Intellivision Auto Racing (at least in one episode).

 

I would apologize for going blatantly off-topic, but I think it's too late to save this thread.

 

[Edit] see, the thing is, I think the games in that video look pretty nice. And yeah, so does Gears of War. There's a wide range of games that you can say "have good graphics."

Edited September 6, 2006 by BydoEmpire

[sega saturn x]

That review said the game sucked because th A.I was lacking. Hardly see what that has to do with graphics. And I also fail to see what 20 something year old defender clone has to do with the current state of games, at all.

[jbanes]

That review said the game sucked because th A.I was lacking. Hardly see what that has to do with graphics.

Dude. Seriously. I quoted it for you and everything. It's not my fault if you can't read.

 

No you haven't magically become an expert game player, you've discovered Stargunner's terrible flaw, the computer AI. It's hard to believe, but for once the lack of game difficulty has killed an otherwise beautiful game. [...] So what went wrong? According to an interview with Alex, he was asked to cram in extra enemy graphics into the already full game code. Want to take a guess on where he found the extra room?

 

And I also fail to see what 20 something year old defender clone has to do with the current state of games, at all.

Remind me again. Why are you on AtariAge?

 

You have limited resources in time, money, and implementable ideas. Now go build the best game you can. Any engineer worth his salt will tell you that some things will be sacrificed for others. The question is, what will get sacrificed, and is it worth the tradeoff?

[CPUWIZ]

Oh, and this thread is more pointless than any other speculative thread I've seen yet.

 

I posted the link, because I thought it was a well done video clip, I don't give a rats ass about where you guys took it. You as a Nintendo fanboy should have appreciated the link.

 

I've said it before, I'll say it again, I will buy all 3 consoles anyway because each one of them has something to offer and all 3 suck ass in their own way. Someone seriously needs to slap around the hardware engineers that make the graphics chips on ALL consoles.

[sega saturn x]

You have limited resources in time, money, and implementable ideas. Now go build the best game you can. Any engineer worth his salt will tell you that some things will be sacrificed for others. The question is, what will get sacrificed, and is it worth the tradeoff?

But this isn't 1982 and the tradeoffs aren't anything like that anymore.

[jbanes]

But this isn't 1982 and the tradeoffs aren't anything like that anymore.

They're not? And you know this because... ???

 

There are still tradeoffs. Do you spend your time making the engine look nicer, or do you spend it on cool AI? Do you spend your GPU budget on more detailed artwork, or do you spend it on more objects flying around?

 

Do you spend your CPU/GPU budget on making FZero X look superb, or do you dial back the graphics so that you can whip the player around the tunnels at breakneck speeds? (A very real-world example from the N64 generation.)

 

There's a reason why companies pay big bucks for pre-made engines like Quake, Unreal, and Doom. It's not because they're lazy, it's because that's work that detracts from the game. So they let Id and Epic do the dirty work of creating an engine, then craft a game on top. Unfortunately, the new generation of game consoles throws a bit of a monkey wrench in all that. Suddenly, the existing game engines are no longer tuned to the systems. So do you spend your budget on tuning them, or do you spend it on the game content?

 

Realisitically, you find a balance for the first generation, then let future games and game engines work out more details to utilizing the systems.

 

Of course, according to you, you just wave a magic wand and it all looks like fo' shizzle!

[Gregory DG]

Kitt's radar was also Intellivision Auto Racing (at least in one episode).

I thought it was Rally-X?

[CPUWIZ]

Of course, according to you, you just wave a magic wand and it all looks like fo' shizzle!

 

Man, that would be awesome instead of 18+ months worth of sweating blood.

[jbanes]

Of course, according to you, you just wave a magic wand and it all looks like fo' shizzle!

Man, that would be awesome instead of 18+ months worth of sweating blood.

Is that you talking, or the 80+ hours of crunch time?

 

(Sometimes I am REALLY glad I didn't get into professional video games... )

[Atari Master]

The Wii looks fine. It's graphics are probably going to be fine.

 

Why are we trying to kill each other, here? Lol

[figgler]

Oh, and this thread is more pointless than any other speculative thread I've seen yet.

 

I posted the link, because I thought it was a well done video clip, I don't give a rats ass about where you guys took it. You as a Nintendo fanboy should have appreciated the link.

 

 

Relax. The original topic I am fine with and do appreciate actually. I just think it sucks that the thread deteriorates into a "which system will do better" discussion with little merit. So, instead of discussing the actual footage you were kind enough to post, once again we are all speculating on something no one can know, and it's a border line flame war once again.

[n8littlefield]

Having just downloaded and watched the footage, rather than streaming it and having it pause to buffer every few minutes I have to say I won't be disappointed with the graphics. The crowd in Mario Strikers and the lighting effects in Red Steel were especially nice to see. As a PS2 gamer it looks significantly better than most PS2 stuff, especially in lighting. While I can see next to high res shots of Gears of War it won't win prizes, they certainly are still a step up from current gen.

 

The controls look incredibly intuitive, I can't wait to try them out. This could finally get me into FPS games again!

[Atari Master]

This is how I see it.

 

The Wii wont have XBox 360 and PS3 graphics, but it'll have good enough graphics. Kind of like the Gamecube compared to the X-Box. It wasn't as powerful, but it was enough.

 

The Wii-mote will work. For some games it probably wont be comfortable, for many it may be.

 

People expect WAY to much out of the consoles. They act like the PS3 is going to up and transform into Optimus Prime.

 

They're gaming consoles. Like CPUWIZ said, there will be some things we like, some things we wont like. That's how it's ALWAYS been since the Atari days.

Edited September 6, 2006 by Atari Master