yellowlightman

Yeah, but then what types ofgames would we be left with? It would leave quite a few of us without any games to play. I think MSW's point was that PC gaming lack innovation and that it's mostly just the same tired idea rehashed over and over again. Or at least that's how I feel. <_<

Hopefully Solscud will see this thread, he did an awesome job wth custom vinyl stickers with his Macross-themed Civic. He could probably give you some good advice about having custom decals done if you can't find any that you want.

If you're going to remake a game, MGS is a good game to remake. All the same, it's annoying the kind of half-assed support companies give the Gamecube. Sega especially with all their ported DC games (good games, but c'mon...). Companies complain that GC games don't sell, but no one ever seems to think if they released something other than crappy ports they might actually do well.

Think about it bro. ... That's a cool picture, Exo. I hadn't seen that yet. I think for a mascot we should do something macross related, but not a direct character from Macross. Valdemeer the Valkyrie or something, but not Milia.

Wasn't the original Bumblebee (think that was hsi name-- it's been a long time) a VW beetle? I think one of the new Mini Coopers would make a cool trasnformer, and the same is different from the other cars so it might give them a chance to change up the transformation.

Unfortunately the older fans are even worse. The bulk of the Gundam fanbase sadly are just completely obnoxious, especially the UC elitists. Depends on what you mean by older fan. I think the oldest Gundam fans on the net are on the Gundam Mailing List, and while definately UC-biased (lots of these peopel grew up with Gundam or got into it in the early 90's) they're definately not obnoxious. A lot of the UC elitism comes from the tons of Wing fans that sprouted up, and annoyed the hell out of the older UC with their lack of comprehension about the history of Gundam before Wing and their general teenybopper crapulence. Robotech fandom encountered a similar situation after CN started playing Robotech.

Believe me, RX7club.net has dealt with plenty of NSX owners who cry like babies and go on and on about "prestige" and all that other crap when they get emabressed by much cheaper RX-7s. I suppose when you spend $70k on a Honda, you gotta reassure yourself all you can. Afterall, buying an NSX means you can't afford a Ferrari. Honestly though, it's not a matter of being able to afford it. It's a matter of getting better or equal performance for a lower price. You make it sound like people have thousands of dollars just to throw away, and most don't. Buying an NSX for the prestige and honor is lame. Buy a BMW or a Mercedes or a Porsche or a Ferrari, don't buy an overpriced underpowered exotic car made by the same people that make electric generators. Hondas are good cars, but they don't have the prestige that apparently makes the NSX "worth it." $70k is still a lot of money. Keep in mind the NSX is supposed to be an exotic, and it makes less than 300bhp. Prestige and build quality is part of the equation, but a big part of an exotic car is the power. People buy expensive Lambos and Porches because they're fast. Aluminum and hand construction is one thing, but is it necessary? No. The FD weighs less than the NSX and doesn't use any aircraft grade alumnium. Although I'll concede on the build quality argument, even though my Mom's Civic is suffering from leprosy of the body panels. The NSX isn't still around because it sells well. It's still here because Acura needs a flagship "really cool" car. Mazda is actually doing quite well, and was teh only part of the Ford family that turned a profit last year. Not to mention the fact that Mazda is releasing some of the most exciting cars coming out of Japan. The 4-door Mazdaspeed Protege will outhandle an Integra Type R, the RX-8 is a sports coupe that actually has function and can actually perform, the Mazdaspeed Miata improves the best handling car selling for under $40k. Mazda is certainly making more interesting vehicles than any other Japanese auto maker. Honda gave up being unique a while ago.

My whole argument in the first place was about performance. The NSX would obviously make a nicer daily driver than the RX-7, but in terms of performace they are equals. Even with that in mind the NSX is overpriced for what it offers, but that's not to say it's a bad car. My original point was that for the performance minded enthusiast, the RX-7 is a better deal. I drive cars to drive them, so that's the mindset I come from. Hell, I prefer manual windows to automatic. The reason they stopped making RX-7s in the US is the same reason they stopped making Supras and 300ZX's: the market for high end sports cars was drying up, so don't use that as an excuse. Yeah, the FD is a maintenance bitch, but that's not why they stopped making them. I apologize about price, but the new NSX's are around $90k, so I assumed the older ones were in a similar price bracket. I don't follow the NSX, so I was shooting from the hip as to pricing.

Sorry if I came off like an ass, i didn't mean to (much). But frankly, Uxi's way of thinking reall yirks me, especially since it's so prevalent among car "enthusiasts" nowadays. His idea that the price and targeted audience of a car are what define a car rather than it's actual performance is nuts. A car isn't a jewelry, cars aren't designed as a way to show off wealth. Cars exist to be driven, and as such, when comparing a car against another car status and prestige are irrelevant. Human perception of a car is what determines that, but comparing cars is done by comparing the car itself. How it handles, how it drives, how it performs, how it was engineered. Opinion is one thing; I can't fault another person for liking an NSX more than an FD. That's personal opinion, soem people liek red, some people like blue. But saying the NSX is superior and of a "higher level" than the FD simply because of price and not performance (in which they are equal), that is what bothers me.

You are the definition of a ricer. What you're saying is that performance doesn't matter, only price and prestige. If you're ego is so inflated that you judge cars based on who they're marketed to you're one sad person. Even in terms of price the Supra is on the same level as the RX-7. the NSX is overpriced, and apparently that's all that matters to you... price. Price doesn't matter. The difference in price between the RX-7 and NSX is easily figured out. The NSX uses more advanced materials and processes, making for a more expensive construction. There's also the matter of it costing simpyl too much for what it offers; this has long been a complaint of automotive journalists. I suppose arguing with you is worthless, since the only thing that matters to you is price. In true ricer fashion, looks and reputation matter more than performance. Congratulations, you have the automotive appreciation of a 12 year old.

Thats Kawamori? I thought it was one of the Zentraedi spies (name escapes me at the moment).

That guy is awesome, how much do those usually go on eBay?

Afraid to say that the third generation RX-7 is very much a competitor with the NSX. Comparing a model year RX-7 and model year NSX, an RX-7 will be equal or very very close to an NSX in terms of staright line speed, and actually out handle the NSX. The NSX is an overpriced wanna be Ferrari. The RX-7 can hang with them in every way, and for 1/3 the price. I know, it's hard to believe because the NSX has an aura of invincibility around it among Honda fans but they're not that great. The RX-7 is a competitor with the NSX and in terms of price for what you get, the RX-7 wins. The Supra beats out the RX-7 in power potential and reliability, but not in handling. The Supra is a pig compared to the RX-7 and will get shamed by the RX-7 on the track. The Supra is a dyno queen, they put out impressive number but still have trouble breaking 9 secs in the 1/4 mile with over 600 HP. Put a few grand into a mid-80's fox body Mustang and embaress any Supra owner. They're made for top speed runs, not handling or 1/4 times. Honda is a good company but they can't make an exciting car for the life of them. Good engineering and design, but horribly overrated. The S2000 and NSX are good cars, but overpriced and overrated. EDIT: Heres proof: http://www.supercars.net/Comp?sourceList=1...ompList=1547-28 The NSX will beat an RX-7 in a straight line, but rthe RX-7 can push more g's (i.e. it turns better). The RX-7 has less power but less weight. All in all the cars are pretty much neck-to-neck, but the RX-7 is much cheaper.

All good sites, but they just remind me of how great the Gundam Project used to be. Oh well, at least Mark Simmons is wirting for gundamofficial.com, so it's close. I doubt we'll ever see a Gundam site comparable to Macross World in terms of merchandise coverage because of the huge amount of Gundam crap thats been released in the past 20 years. A smaller series like Macross is easier to cover than suge a sprawling series like Gundam. Also check out http://aeug.blogspot.com/ for daily Gundam news.

What's Femme Fatale magazine, what do they cover?

Reminds me of most car companies' refusal to let they're cars show any damage in video games. It creates a "negative image" for people to see their cars getting beat up, or so they say. God forbid that it happens in... real life.

Robotech got me into anime by way of a 1/100th Takatoku I stole from a friend in 2nd grade. I loved Robotech a lot, but even from early on I knew about the differences between Robotech and Macross. The differences never bothered me, I always considered both series different and seperate and appreciated each series for different aspects. Robotech had an overall larger feel for me, despite a lot of retconning (and depending on the version of the story you believe) everything managed to fit together relatively well. Not to mention with so many novels, comic books, etc you have about 30 years of the Robotech timeline exhaustively covered. Macross is kinda the opposite, not as much overall detail but more specific detail. Not to mention the fact that Macross actually has new series released for it, up until recently all Robotech had was comics (which all sucked after Academy lost the license). Like it or not, Robotech doesn't get the credit it deserved and definately jump started anime fandom. Star Blazers, Battle of the Planets and others came before it but none of those series had the impact Robotech had. As for the future, Macross seems to be heading away from it's more hard core technical roots into something a bit more mystical and 'magic music' like. Meanwhile Robotech is getting raped by HG. In the end I think I'll just hide in my room and tell myself that anything released after 1995 for either series never existed. Kinda liek what I do with Gundam and anything post-Char's Counterattac.

I think you misunderstand the RX-8's purpose. The RX-8 is not a replacement for the RX-7, it's not supposed to compete with or replace the 7, it's an entirely new car with it's own reasonings behind it. Remember that before the RX-7 was every released they had the RX-100, the RX-2, the RX-3 and so on. RX doesn't automatically say it's a full-on sports car, it only means it's a rotary car. The RX-7 was best known for it's rotary engine and it's handling. While no slouch, until the Turbo IIs in 1987 (but really not until the third generation twin turbos in 93) the RX-7 wasn't considered a powerful car. The RX-7 only entered into near-supercar status in 1993, and until then it was just a little car that handled well and could beat the pants off more expensive cars with more horsepower on the track and in the corners. The RX-8 handles really well. It's not designed for straight line speed (but then again never was the RX-7... not even the third generation twin turbo). The RX-7 is a sports car, not a muscle car. That means it's designed to handle. The RX-8 is probably the best handling car in the sub $30k range, and in that respect lives up to the RX-7's heritage. The 4-door issue drives home how the RX-8 isn't supposed to be considered a replacement for the RX-7. It's a cross over sports coupe, for people that want something with the looks and handling of a coupe but the practicality of a sedan. Hell, my RX-7 had four seats originally (I've since taken them out), does that make it less of a sports car? Hell no. Most people look unfavorably on the RX-8 because they compare it to the RX-7, especially the third generation. You need to realize the RX-8 isn't a RX-7 replacement, it's just another RX model that happens to handle really well and still be practical. It's designed for a different crowd than the RX-7, and should be treated as such. RX-7 owners like it because it's new (less crap to break), because it's pracitical enough to use as a daily driver (something the RX-7 isn't so good at if you have kids), because the engine is more fuel efficient than the old 13b, and because it's a new RX car.

Yeah, I've got an 1986 RX-7 Sport. If you wanna talk about buying advice you can PM me, they can be a bit daunting to buy at first but there aren't many cars with the looks and handling for the price. Turbos are overrated and have way more crap to deal with. I agree with F360 that a LanEVo would be cool, but seeing as how miserably Mitsubishi is doing in the WRC (they took a break this year since in 2002 they did horribly) I dunno if thats a possibility. I'd say a Peugeot or Citreon might be cool (a hatch might offer soem different transforming possibilities) but those companies are virtually unknown outside of Europe.

I never said that there wasn't an offer to buy back the RX-8 for driver's who were unsatisfied with it, I said that the claim the RX8 wasn't as fast as Mazda said it would be were false, which they are. The RX8 didn't have the HP it was advertised as having, but the performance was the same as promised. The buyback was offered so that Mazda wouldn't be flooded with idiots wanting to sue them because of a stupid number. The RX8 performs exactly as it was promised to. It wasn't that you made the jokes, it was the "facts" you based your jokes on that bothered me because they were untrue. I'll be the first to admit the RX-7 has it's drawbacks, believe me. I'll be the first to laugh at the car's short comings-- the real ones. Things like the craptastic gas mileage I get or the fact that my car is slow as piss in a straight line. Yet the shortcomings you chose to base your jokes on were totally untrue, that's what bothered me. It bothered me because in car circles I hear that same bullshit every from people who don't what the hell a rotary is except that they're "unreliable." Funny or not, the jokes perpetrated myths and lies and in that respect... weren't funny.

Yeah, the FD is probably one of the best looking cars of the 1990s. The RX-8 is a step down, but by no means an ugly duckling. Turbo is nice, but relaibility does get compromised. But considering the price and efficiency of the FD, rebuilding every 90k isn't that bad. Seeing as how a FD will compete equally with a same year NSX (if not beat the NSX in some areas) for 1/3 the price.

Before you make a bunch of wise ass remarks, you should really get your facts straight. The horsepower argument is bogus. Yeah, they claimed higher horsepower than they actually dyno at but the car performs like it has the HP they claimed it would. The RX-8 performs like they said it would, even if the dyno numbers don't match. The only problem is for losers who do nothing but brag about HP figures. Not to mention if you're complaining about the RX0*'s power you're missing the point of the car. It's a sports car, not a muscle car. That means it was designed to handle; not go straight really fast and suck ass at everything else. Don't bring up the rotary reliability argument because you'll look like more of an idiot. I have a 1986 RX-7 that has over 140k miles on the original engine and runs perfect. A normally aspirated rotary is just as reliable as any piston engine. And if you want to talk durability, consider that our cars were designed to redline. How many piston engines can redline for an hour and not get destroyed? Mazda won Le Mans in 1991 because their 4-rotor is more reliable (and fuel efficient) than any 12 cylinder engine. There's a reason rotaries are banned in 24 hours of Le Mans and 24 Hours of Daytona: It's because they own any other engine in long-duration high-RPM use. The only rotaries that need to be rebuilt less than every 100k are the turbo-charged engines in the third generation RX-7 (but any high performance engine is gonna need maitenance like that, especially soemthing that gets 280HP out of a 1.3liter engine) and engines that belong to people who don't know how to maintain a rotary. The myths about the rotary engine are often miscontrued as facts because people don't know how roatries work, but unfortunately those myths aren't true. Not to mention J, I seem to remember that you're a muscle car guy so talking about engine reliability and poor business practices when you're an American car guy is pretty damn hypocritical if not downright ironic. Before you make a bunch of snide unrelated comments in a thread you should do your research, it'll work a lot better. That said I don't like the look the look of the RX-8 much, but it's definately a beauty queen compared to the Viper and Jeep.

You should visit their IRC channel and play a drinking game. You'd be drunk is seconds. Anyways, drop armor to make it faster? Mmmmmkay. Well, technically it makes sense. Its just not a very logical thing to do. But they had to make the YF-1R "special" in some way, too bad Yune is an idiot.

Looks like the Ghost in the Shell: SAC PS2 game is confirmed for March 4th. NCS just put up a preorder page for it.

Homogulation is a wonderful thing.