it's aged better than vagrant story because most of the graphical detail is textures and hand-painted backdrops.

basically, no other game will give you the experience of travelling around gorgeous undisturbed tropical beaches and rain forests.

it depends. depends how you want to experience playing games, and what games you want to play.

the micro is the lightest and smallest, so it's very sexy, but i wouldn't buy it if you want to play RPGs because IMO RPGs look better on a bigger and brighter screen. the later version of SP apprently has a brighter screen, and its bigger. DS is good value considering you have a large library of games to choose from, but it's the heaviest and biggest, and it's more like a console/portable hybrid. it's also the most expensive. and i wouldn't bother buying the original GBA as its not backlit...but i guess if you play games in daylight, it's fine. i imagine the little light peripheral would be fiddley and make the GBA look pretty ugly.

i have a DS for DS games and a micro for pick-up-and-play GBA games (fighters, puzzlers etc.)

the nes classics range is what made me invest in a second gameboy, as i liked the idea of the simplicity of the two buttons and one screen, but i found it was better to play those NES games on DS or the gameboy player at home, because of the length and that you get a more 'classic' representation on a brighter screen. pacman still works great on the micro though, and of course bit generations.

i recently noticed that the DS is somewhere inbetween a portable system and a home console. it's quite big and weighty, it has two great quality/bright screens, and a lot of the games on it are console-type games, or originated on console. i have a gameboy micro for dedicated portable play - it's small and light, and i only really play puzzle type games on it - but it has the benefit of a large library of classics and not just the generic mobile phone games.

'you don't want a game that looks like real life but has nothing n it'

is photo-realistic 'realism' what people mean when they say 'graphics vs. gameplay'? i find people's language so cryptic and hidden, especially on topics like these.

gameseek is rubbish. their prices are crazy, unless they're selling mostly new/sealed products, but it doesn't say.

'mario golf' on GBC! epic game.

the name sounds so utterly boring, but it's a very fun adventure golf game. one of the best GBC games.

then there is 'survival kids' for GBC again! this game out in 1999, about the same time as mario golf. and it was a great little adventure game...so absorbing and open-ended. memories can be decieving though, so maybe that's the nostalgia. but those are the two best GBC games in my opinion.

'Shadow is a game that's all [aesthetic] and no substance..One of the most boring games I've ever played...

I don't buy a game to look at the scenery while there's nothing at all to do...

I remember buying it and taking it back after playing my friend's copy for a few hours...Not impressive at all but people seem to like it enough...'

here's someone who didn't like either!

'For example in situation in which I have two games: one with outstanding graphics but repetitive and boring gameplay,and the second one with not the best graphics but innovative and not boring gameplay.'

ah right. thanks for the example.

well, i would generally play the game that had something new to offer that i haven't seen before in games. so this might be an innovative aesthetic but more conventional gameplay, or conventional aesthetic with progressive gameplay. so i would play both of these.

as for 'outstanding graphics', do you mean technically excellent like crysis, or excellent art direction like final fantasy xii? i would play the latter. i would not spend money on beefing up my PC to play crysis. however, i might play crysis at a friend's place if they have it - out of curiosity, and because i want to experience it anyway to see what the fuss is about.

it's funny, a lot of my friends consider shadow of the colossus to have 'repetitive and boring gameplay'. but that game is both aesthetically beautiful and innovative and progressive with its mechanics.

some re-releases might be worth it. for example, DK: jungle beat, pikmin 2 and chibi robo. DK: jungle beat is almost impossible to find where i live, and its also hard to find a PAL version online. pikmin 2 is ridiculously priced online (£45/$80 or so) and nowhere in the shops here. chibi robo likewise.

nintendo need to stop putting region blocks on their consoles, and they should stop 'acting' like their previous consoles are forgotten and dead because i'm sure those 'user-bases' still exist. re-release those games at a small discount, so the crazy inflation online goes down, and then focus on new wii ideas simultaneously. is a company's SOLE purpose to maximise profits at the cost of everything else?

another justification for messing with old games is to experiment or iterate on something that will aid a future game getting the green-light for production; i.e. to test ideas out. this seems like a cheap way to go about doing that, and make some money from the time doing it. otherwise, yeah, it is a bit pointless.

hopefully the new audiences they gain will be a breath of fresh air...but i don't know.

oops!

guess i was late to the party, eh?

didn't notice.