|
DU Philosophical Debate: Should MAME and masturbation remain mutually exclusive?
#237947 - 11/03/10 10:42 PM
|
|
|
I hope the joke in the subject line crosses cultural borders well enough, but it probably won't... We got a CD-i version of Yakyuken Super I thanks to ANY. Well, that's the disc name that comes up when you put it in a computer, it might not be correct/full. It's essentially an old CD-i version of the Japanese porno laserdisc game we lost a few weeks ago.
|
|
|
|
Re: DU Philosophical Debate: Should MAME and masturbation remain mutually exclusive?
[Re: Smitdogg]
#237964 - 11/04/10 03:38 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: DU Philosophical Debate: Should MAME and masturbation remain mutually exclusive?
[Re: Smitdogg]
#237986 - 11/04/10 10:33 AM
|
|
|
come on...we had major masturbation sessions when CPS2/3 was correctly emulated...not to even mention what will happen if there is Raiden2 (cough) or other stuff appearing...
|
|
|
|
Re: DU Philosophical Debate: Should MAME and masturbation remain mutually exclusive?
[Re: Smitdogg]
#238043 - 11/04/10 09:00 PM
|
|
|
> I hope the joke in the subject line crosses cultural borders well enough, but it
> probably won't... We got a CD-i version of Yakyuken Super I thanks to ANY. Well,
> that's the disc name that comes up when you put it in a computer, it might not be
> correct/full. It's essentially an old CD-i version of the Japanese porno laserdisc
> game we lost a few weeks ago.
Although for this particular case, wouldn't that be more related to MESS than MAME?
|
|
|
|
Re: DU Philosophical Debate: Should MAME and masturbation remain mutually exclusive?
[Re: BIOS-D]
#238044 - 11/04/10 09:03 PM
|
|
|
As far as I know it's an arcade type game running on CD-i hardware that takes coins so no.
|
|
|
|
Re: DU Philosophical Debate: Should MAME and masturbation remain mutually exclusive?
[Re: Smitdogg]
#238052 - 11/04/10 10:27 PM
|
|
|
> As far as I know it's an arcade type game running on CD-i hardware that takes coins
> so no.
That was exactly my doubt, i knew i was missing something. Thanks.
|
|
|
| Naoki |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 11/10/09
|
|
Posts: 1998
|
|
Loc: United Kingdom
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: DU Philosophical Debate: Should MAME and masturbation remain mutually exclusive?
[Re: Smitdogg]
#238053 - 11/04/10 10:33 PM
|
|
|
What CD-i based system was that then?
|
----
On a quest for Digital 573 and Dancing Stage EuroMix 2
By gods I've found it!
|
|
|
Re: DU Philosophical Debate: Should MAME and masturbation remain mutually exclusive?
[Re: Naoki]
#238056 - 11/04/10 10:37 PM
|
|
|
Probably one that takes coins and dispenses panties. There are lots of Japanese systems we don't have documented on System 16 etc. Obviously I don't have the system or info on it or I would have posted about it.
|
|
|
| Naoki |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 11/10/09
|
|
Posts: 1998
|
|
Loc: United Kingdom
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: DU Philosophical Debate: Should MAME and masturbation remain mutually exclusive?
[Re: Smitdogg]
#238057 - 11/04/10 10:39 PM
|
|
|
Oh, sorry for the dumb question then Smit.
|
----
On a quest for Digital 573 and Dancing Stage EuroMix 2
By gods I've found it!
|
|
|
Re: DU Philosophical Debate: Should MAME and masturbation remain mutually exclusive?
[Re: Naoki]
#238271 - 11/07/10 06:01 PM
|
|
|
Phillips CD based arcade hardware isn't all that unusual. Most of the later American Laser games were released to the arcades running on modified 3D0 machines. In fact many of the later "laserdisc" games didn't even use laserdiscs!
|
|
|
| Naoki |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 11/10/09
|
|
Posts: 1998
|
|
Loc: United Kingdom
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: DU Philosophical Debate: Should MAME and masturbation remain mutually exclusive?
[Re: HowardC]
#238291 - 11/08/10 02:11 AM
|
|
|
With the bad reliability of LaserDiscs, I wouldn't blame them. 
*I do know how unreliable moving parts inside an arcade enviroment can be, but LaserDiscs seem worse..
|
----
On a quest for Digital 573 and Dancing Stage EuroMix 2
By gods I've found it!
|
|
Index 
Threaded 
DU Philosophical Debate: Should MAME and masturbation remain mutually exclusive?
Reply
[Re: 
