Spooky!

[The Chef]

The game isn't even about that. Those are just features of it. The game is about a squirrel who wanders into a messed up world and ends up having his life ruined while at the same time learning a valuable lesson.

Oh, and you're just as big of a nerd as me, Glorb. Don't deny it.

[SushieBoy]

I wish Conker was in DKRDS, he was my favortite racer.

[Glorb]

Let's put this whole Conker morality thing into perspective. If I said that I dislike Shadow because he's a dumb character made twice as dumb with an "edgy" attitude and propensity to hold cartoony, oversized guns "gangsta-style", and someone else said that Shadow is merely trying to find his identity in a war he didn't start, I would argue, saying:

A. He was in a dumb game.
2. His game was crappy.

Thus, it's a pointless point to argue. And let's clear something up:

Oh, and you're just as big of a nerd as me, Glorb. Don't deny it.

Nu-uh! I was...uh...voted least likely to be a nerd...in the School of Rock.

[The Chef]

Did you play CBFD, Glorb? If not, then everything you said was nullified because you were passing judgement on a game you haven't even played.

For the record, I played Shadow all the way through. It has vritually no substance whatsoever, both gameplay-wise and story-wise.

[Glorb]

For the record, I have played both games, and although CBFD was pretty fun, gameplay-wise (it's a Rare game, so of course it's good), the immature humor grew old quickly. That's it. It's a comedy game, made to amuse and entertain. I don't find it too funny, but others do, and that's fine. I don't consider the plot good, but others do, and that's OK. But I just think it's rather pointless to try and justify stuff in the game; it's just a game. It's like trying to explain plot holes in a movie.

Oh, and none of this is very Spooky, in my opinion.

[The Chef]

I'd still put Conker over Shadow for everything. You can't deny that at least some of the humor was clever, with all the movie parodies and how it made fun of video game physics in general, and the idea of the Context Pads was pretty cool, too. Shadow was a cash-in opportunity, and failed on every aspect.

[Glorb]

Hmm...now that I think of it, I'm probably basing most of my opinion on Live and Reloaded, although I've played both games. It's mostly the same game with some extra stuff, but the Terminator 2 and Matrix parodies have become really lame with time. It doesn't matter how funny it was seven years ago; it sure ain't anymore.

But anyway, this argument should end. I agree, Shadow sucks with the fury of a thousand nuns, and Conker was funnier than I remember. Everybody wins. The End.

[The Chef]

You chicken.

I know one thing, and that's the fact that Rare put a lot of work into Conker. Shadow probably took all of three days to make.

[Glorb]

Look, I think we all get it already. Conker = good game, Shadow = crap. Conker was funny and good, Shadow was crappy and crap. There's no need to continue this argument, because it is absolutely off-topic, and because you've made the exact same point, like, six times already. Now go to your room, and no desert for you.

[PaperLuigi]

You know what's spooky? I actually read the entire argument between you guys!

[The Chef]

I wasn't even continuing the argument. I was just dumping out the rest of my thoughts. But the fact the Glorb wanted to end the argument so abruptly proves that he's a chicken when it comes to debates. :D

[PaperLuigi]

He's gonna argue with you over that claim, you know.

[The Chef]

He is? Wait, this is gonna turn into a paradox. He's too chicken to argue, yet he'll argue to prove he's not chicken?

[PaperLuigi]

I guess we just destroyed the universe. Human Nature dictates that if you're called a chicken, you'll argue againts it.

[Chupperson Weird]

Human nature does not dictate that.