GTP Cool Wall: Nissan Skyline N1

[Dragonistic]

I didn't say Joey was uncool, I said I think it's uncool in itself to make that decision in my eyes, he's the one who decided he's incredibly uncool in his own post whereas I only thought that one part of his personality isn't. There is as much depth as needed to make that judgement and I made no other, if I did quote me doing so and I will edit it accordingly to bring it in line with what I mean.

What I'm saying is that the driver is NOT the car, so why should it be such a be all and end all of how cool it is? Similarly ricey modifications aren't the actual car, that's made by some silly body shop and then put on by the owner. The performance of a car IS part of the car however, so why should that be completely ignored? If a car which looks like a Ferrari only goes 80mph (kit car for example) is it cool? Even if it sounds like one I think we'd all agree that it isn't though it may fool many into thinking it is cool by the illusion. I think a car needs competent performance personally but not outstanding, but I think it's fair to say alot of people think speed in itself be it around a corner or in a straight line is cool.

fashionably attractive or impressive

Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0177440#m_en_gb0177440
Speed impresses alot of people, so it's perfectly acceptable for them to do so (note that it doesn't not specify fashionably impressive, only attractive is linked with that and it's an 'or' rather than an 'and'). It may not impress someone else which is also fine. If image is all coolness is and I am wrong I'd like to see a source which backs that up.

Another source states cool as:

fashionable and attractive at the time

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=cool
Following on from that fashionable and attractive are defined from the same source as (in respect to each other):

having elegance or taste or refinement in manners or dress

pleasing to the eye or mind especially through beauty or charm

Note that both clarify that there is more then merely looking at them involved which suggests that what something does creates an image just as much as what it looks like inanimate, in the context of cars that will include how it performs (in the appropriate manner not neccessary in a sporting context) and drives. Though someone may find something or someone attractive based on a shallow perception of it, they will be more attracted to that which has more to it based upon what they it or they can do.

 

[Famine]

What I'm saying is that the driver is NOT the car, so why should it be such a be all and end all of how cool it is?

And, as pointed out, that's the only difference between the two of you:

But that's absolutely fine, since cool is a subjective judgement of image and couldn't be any less shallow if it were a bubble. The difference between you and Joey is merely whether you think the image the ricers give the R34 matters to the image of the car. Joey does, you don't, but you're both making image calls to determine the car's coolness.

If image is all coolness is and I am wrong I'd like to see a source which backs that up.

All the dictionary definitions you're quoting confirm that "cool" is all about the image...

What's "fashion" if not image? What's "attractive" if not image? What are impressiveness, elegance, taste, beauty, charm (and so on) if not image? None of these things are tangible properties - they're aspects assigned by a second party, subjectively, based on perception of... image.

Note that both clarify that there is more then merely looking at them involved

Who said anything about just looking at them?

which suggests that what something does creates an image just as much as what it looks like inanimate

Creates a what? Image.

Cool is all about image. Both you and Joey are - correctly - making an image call. Is the image a cool one or not? Joey says not, because certain parties diminish the image. You say that these parties aren't relevant and do not diminish the image. You're both on the same side of the same coin here.

 

[Dragonistic]

To put it simply, I think my girlfriend is cool but it's nothing to do with her image (I mean she likes Twilight, and that does NOT make a good image to me), it's because of her personality primarily that I find her attractive and I don't think personality or character is the same as the mental image which a person or object creates and if anything image is part of their personality to me and not the other way. Though I may also find her image appealing based upon the usual factors such as appearance and dress code, there are other factors which I do not think are part of her image as you need to know more about her to know those factors which is going further then the 'shallow image'.

Is a car doing 200mph not impressive to many? Is a woman who can save you from a fire not impressive to Omnis (IIRC )? I just don't think ability is part of an image as you don't really know ability through image but it may certainly be attractive to many otherwise we must all put ability (as it can impressive) into account which contradicts the notion that we must ignore performance when voting on the cool wall. I am not arguing that image does not contribute, though we may piece it together in different ways by what is important to us, but merely that there are more things involved which are more in depth and have increasing or decreasing levels of importance in each individual.

Note that I am referring to image in the same vain that Joey was (which is a shallow image rather then a fully informed as you're ignoring many factors and only using few, the driver of a car in this case) and I believe you are going for the more technical definition, in which case the ability of something effects the image and is part of it yes. To use the kit car example, once you know it's snail pace and it's fake the image it created is ruined and you know it's true colours, which is why I disagree with the addition of the word shallow when defining cool as the shallow image of said fake Ferrari is that it is a Ferrari but when you look further in to it you get a true image which takes into account performance to some extent at least but that is aparently wrong to do. I believe it would me more correct to say cool is an image created in a persons head based upon what is impressive or fashionable to them, be it appearance or otherwise. When Joey used the word image he appeared to be saying image ignores the otherwise bit for the most part and I was going off that for much of my posting which I apologise for getting lost in translation on that as this was not correct in a more technical sense.

 

[astrosdude91]

Well this is a fun little debate! Isn't it?

 

[Dragonistic]

Well as an internet person as Joey describes

 

[slidesquad#1]

What is a cool car

Coolness is subjective. Different people attach different attributes to things, and judge accordingly. Joey and you have different criteria as far as coolness is concerned, and both are equally correct. While I agree with your point of view, the subjective nature of these threads mean you're not going to convince anyone on the other side of the fence any more than you're about to get swayed by their arguments.

These arguments have been going on ever since the Cool Wall started (and I've had my say in a few of them), and precisely 0 people have changed their opinion. Agree to disagree and move on. Much easier for everyone involved.

 

[Dragonistic]

Coolness is subjective. Different people attach different attributes to things, and judge accordingly. Joey and you have different criteria as far as coolness is concerned, and both are equally correct. While I agree with your point of view, the subjective nature of these threads mean you're not going to convince anyone on the other side of the fence any more than you're about to get swayed by their arguments.

These arguments have been going on ever since the Cool Wall started (and I've had my say in a few of them), and precisely 0 people have changed their opinion. Agree to disagree and move on. Much easier for everyone involved.

No offence intended

I don't expect to change the way Joey and co perceive cool and I don't think it is wrong, just different, I want to hopefully persuade them accept that others are not wrong in using performance and to explain why others are not worried about who drives them (which I've done). I intended to make my last post my last as I feel that sums up what I'm saying as best as need be as regards the use of performance when determining cool as effects the image but you have to look more in depth to discover it. At this point I do believe it is time to move on however, perhaps another reply or 2 on the subject before business resumes as normal. That said, without disagreement like this, this kind of thread wouldn't be all that interesting would it?

 

[Famine]

To put it simply, I think my girlfriend is cool but it's nothing to do with her image (I mean she likes Twilight, and that does NOT make a good image to me), it's because of her personality primarily that I find her attractive and I don't think personality or character is the same as the mental image which a person or object creates and if anything image is part of their personality to me and not the other way. Though I may also find her image appealing based upon the usual factors such as appearance and dress code, there are other factors which I do not think are part of her image as you need to know more about her to know those factors which is going further then the 'shallow image'.

Nevertheless, these are all intangible properties assigned by a second party - in this case, you.

Sticking with women for a moment, it's quite easy to objectively assess whether a woman has big tits or not (though you'd probably need to be familiar with the bell curve and, in some cases, get the measuring tape out). Big tits is easy - does she have big tits, yes/no, move on without at any point getting involved in the process. In the case of women, they could then be put on the Tit Wall.

The difficult question is... do you like big tits? You might, or you might not (freak). But the decision - and the image - is entirely at the fiat of the second party. In this case, you. You could mull it over and then eventually cast your vote on the Hot Wall.


The mistake people make when they vote because a car is fast or good is the Tit Wall. There'd be precious little point in the Tit Wall/Good Wall/Fast Wall, because everything could be rated empirically and we don't need people voting. People who vote for the image - and speed and ability can be part of that image - are the ones voting for the Hot Wall/Cool Wall.

Of course, the great thing is that no-one needs any experience to vote Hot/Cool. We can all rate your girlfriend's coolness to varying degrees - stick up a photo and some statistics (0-angry time, cost of gifts, I'll stop this analogy right here before it becomes perverted) and even those of us who've never met her can vote. Same goes for the cars - we don't need to have driven a GT-R to say how cool it is any more than we need to have... driven... your... errr... yes. Moving swiftly on.


The fact the car is often riced is a Cool dealbreaker for Joey, despite many other laudable characteristics. It's not for you. The fact your girlfriend likes Twilight might be a Cool dealbreaker for Joey, despite many other laudable characteristics. It's not for you.



This post brought to you by the politically incorrect association of Mongolia

 

[Dragonistic]

All I ask now is that you (and Joey etc.) accept that it is not wrong to take performance, also true of woman, as a characteristic as one of those which contributes to cool, as it creates an image in many peoples heads which they believe to be cool, also true of woman and that image wouldn't be allowed to be posted under the AUP, even though both you and I do not agree with it, not true of woman in my case at least.

It's like the tit wall would go some way to making the hot wall decision for many, if they like massive headlights then they are more likely to vote it hot and similarly they may not. Same goes for a cars performance, if a supercar goes faster then all the others they may think it helps go some way to making it cooler as the image of that car is one of superior speed and power, it might give them a James May fizzing sensation, like a woman to any normal man but it may not change things at all or be taking things to far like Katie Price (was going to say Jordan then I remember who the admin is around here).

I will be on a happy medium if we can agree that people are allowed, though it is not neccessity, to include performance without being deemed wrong or missing the point, some people think only speed is cool when it comes to cars after all and I feel it unfair to ridicule them for valuing that characteristic more then say price or styling. If anything the line could be drawn for only including performance as she may have excellent performance figures but if she's butt ugly it's no deal but some people would still go for that even. I'm sure though alot of people appear to be voting based purely on performance, but as the 9ff showed in it's final result I think people will draw a line if they don't like the rest of it, and the mistake is made in calling them wrong when infact the other factors just didn't offend them enough to rule out the big positive to them of speed/power/generic nurd lap. Some people just really really like big breasticles.

This post brought to you because if the super moderator can get so close the line without infraction, so can I. Also when Servo, or indeed Terronium, sees this they'll think the Hot Wall sounds like a really good idea for The Infield

 

[Famine]

All I ask now is that you (and Joey etc.) accept that it is not wrong to take performance, also true of woman, as a characteristic as one of those which contributes to cool

I've never said otherwise - merely that it should not be the sole arbiter, since that's a different and far less subjective data point:

People who vote for the image - and speed and ability can be part of that image - are the ones voting for the Hot Wall/Cool Wall.

Just as giant tatty-bojangles might contribute to your opinion that a woman is cool, so might a low 0-60mph time contribute to your opinion that a car is cool. If both are the sole contributor to that opinion, psychological help may be required.

 

[Dragonistic]

I've never said otherwise - merely that it should not be the sole arbiter, since that's a different and far less subjective data point:

Perhaps it shouldn't be the sole arbiter, but it is for some though certainly not myself. Psychological help or not it's not really wrong, they just have odd priorities . I think there are plenty of people who think performance should be completely ignored though as found in old cool wall debates, not yourself clearly, and hopefully they will not be so strict on those who are mostly interested in performance only.

 

[Joey D]

This thread is full of lawlz. I'm really glad I gave up on the cool wall long ago.

Judging Joey to be uncool (and he is - he's an archaeology geek who drives a BINI and posts to an internet site about a game he doesn't play any more; I suspect he's entirely comfortable with this - I know I'm heinously uncool, but I couldn't give a flyer)

Wow that really made me laugh, mainly because it's so true.

 

[Nicksfix]

This cool wall nomination went to hell in a handbasket pretty quick,didn't it ?

Different strokes for different folks,judge as you want to I guess.Flamewar on how to judge a car as cool.

I think the car is SUB-ZERO This is one that rarely,if ever, is seen prowling the streets,mixing it up with all the others. (Well,at least around here anyway) To be honest with you,I've only ever seen 1 on these in real life,and it was an awesome sight.I'm not sure if it was an R33,34,whatever.The fact is (my opinion),these cars look great,and are supposed to perform quite admirably,they definately have my attention.

Just for kicks,I would like to drive one and see what they are really made of. 💡

 

[Azuremen]

Giant Turbo'd Brick with a bunch of Playstations to make it turn.

Srsly, Un-Cool.

 

[niky]

Giant Turbo'd Brick with a bunch of Playstations to make it turn.

Srsly, Un-Cool.

Didn't you know? The first Playstation was cobbled together from surplus GT-R ECUs. They had to delay launching it for five years because there weren't enough ECUs to go around.

 

[Azuremen]

Didn't you know? The first Playstation was cobbled together from surplus GT-R ECUs. They had to delay launching it for five years because there weren't enough ECUs to go around.

Would explain the whole 11ty hundred Skylines in the GT games then.

 

[NISM0_SKYLINE]

Sub - Zero. I don't care who likes it, I'm not going let the rich kids who gave a somewhat bad name ruin my dream car. Yes, a lot of people have made the Skyline into some kind of god like car, but I love Nissan and I've always loved the Skyline. I'm more into the R32, R31, 60's and 70's versions myself, but something about the R34 just gets me. And the R33 isn't too bad either, had to fit that one in too. Oh, and yes, I may be a little biased.

And what's going one here? 2 of the last 20 posts have nothing to do with rating. This car should be automatically sub-zero because it can make a rating thread into a debate .

I'd give any of my organs to own one of those. Sub-zero for me, I don't care about the whole boy-racer scene.

Yea, that's what I meant by the rich kid thing. That makes much more sense.

 

[niky]

Would explain the whole 11ty hundred Skylines in the GT games then.

Shame on you. There are only one thousand Skylines in GT5. Of course, eight hundred of those are reskinned to look like other cars... which is why we have so few premium cars in the game. Nobody would believe a Ferrari with a vulgalour Nissan interior.

 

[GT Pro]

The R34 is one of the greatest all-round sports cars to have ever graced tarmac and remains a beautiful and extremely good value-for-money investment for enthusiasts who don't care for labels. The N1 was a more hardcore version of this already amazing car. −273.15°C

 

[Famine]

Different strokes for different folks,judge as you want to I guess. Flamewar on how to judge a car as cool.

Looked like an adult discussion from where I was sitting. Especially when it devolved to boobies.

 

[daan]

The difficult question is... do you like big tits? You might, or you might not (freak). But the decision - and the image - is entirely at the fiat of the second party.

When did Fiat come into it? It's a Nissan! Or big tits.

Certainly nothing to do with 2 badly parked Fiat 500s... Oh, wait a minute...

 

[lildomplaya]

The car might be "overrated", but I think it looks cool & handles well. I say, cool.

 

[Zenith]

Everything that's already been said.

Seriously Unkool.

 

[Dragonistic]

Looked like an adult discussion from where I was sitting. Especially when it devolved to boobies.

Quoted for truth, alot of people mistake a good debate for a hate war of angry people who detest one another. I found it interesting and entertaining and I imagine most thought I was the most irritated of the bunch 👍.

 

[Lucas]

The hype and fanboys surrounding this car are one of the most annoying things I know of. Moreover, something that I just hate about this car is that there are so many different versions that you don't even know which one you are looking at: the Skyline pic on the original post shows, according to Wikipedia and some other sources, a V-Spec II model, the only one featuring a carbon fiber hood. Whereas the V-Spec II N1 model in GT4 does have a carbon fiber hood. Problem is I couldn't find any result that shows this exact car.

Anyways, I've voted Seriously uncool on this one, based on what others have already said.

 

[NotThePrez]

It's a very good performance car, and I like it, but it's extremely overrated. Sorry, but it's uncool.

 

[GT Pro]

The hype and fanboys surrounding this car are one of the most annoying things I know of. Moreover, something that I just hate about this car is that there are so many different versions that you don't even know which one you are looking at: the Skyline pic on the original post shows, according to Wikipedia and some other sources, a V-Spec II model, the only one featuring a carbon fiber hood. Whereas the V-Spec II N1 model in GT4 does have a carbon fiber hood. Problem is I couldn't find any result that shows this exact car.

It's tough to distinguish the models, but after a lot of research I think I can pinpoint most of them. The only version with the CF hood was indeed the V-Spec II 'N1'- and the reason you possibly can't find many pics on it is because of its rarity and name similarity to all the other variants. The earliest I found a photo of one on Google images ('V-SPEC II N1' as my search) was page 2: http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk9/benny_blanc0/All Japan Day 2009/DSC_0005.jpg