So in fact his posts, which were comparing GT5 Standard cars and the quality improvements to certain GT6 Standard cars with direct and clear images; and
your posts, which are usually dark, shrunken ones with carefully chosen angles to claim the nebulous concept of "I think they look fantastic", are nothing at all alike.
Without a muffler?? If I said that, I was typing too fast. And of course this was about Forza 4. If you have access to it, do any race with a stock car, watch the replay and you'll know exactly what I mean.
I know what you mean just as assuredly as you know what the people who talk about Dysons and Orecs mean. If you want to rally against people making exaggerations of facts to the point of losing sight of what the actual facts are, get yourself a muzzle first.
I think you keep mischaracterizing my criticism of the critics. I have basically two points:
- Give credit where credit is due when things are good - hard to find when the goal is to get all the samples replaced
- Don't lie to bolster your arguments - hard to find when the goal is to... well, see above
It’d certainly help if there were enough exceptions that they couldn’t be considered exceptions. It would also help if, when it was pointed out that the exceptions were exactly that and/or the many examples that are brought up that showcased the lazier aspects of PD’s sound design (for example, using wrong sound samples even when they have samples that would be reasonably close even if not "accurate") they weren’t so roundly ignored to instead talk about one or two cars.
If you want to lead the fight of informing people that not all of the cars are as horrible as the typical examples paraded around (already going to be a difficult enterprise, since Griffith500 does a very good job of that while remaining impartial), making your responses about how the examples don’t represent all of the cars in the game and
why they don’t would be a much better way of doing so. Even arguing about why they weren't really improved at all, so PD could instead focus on improving them all at once, would be a fine basis for debate.
As opposed to making your responses about the conspiracy of how the “grouchers” are just trying to sully the game because they want to “make everyone miserable”, and then talking more at length about the supposedly more respectable people who agree with you rather than saying what they are even agreeing about.
If you’d like an example, I spent a good 6 months after GT5 released trying to explain to people who used the Suzuki Alto Works as proof of how awful GT5 Standards looked was that it was not indicative of what all of the GT5 Standards looked like. I also gave a probable explanation for
why the Alto looked so bad, regularly posted comparisons of the car between GT4 and GT5 to show why my explanation was likely true, and gave a researched list of cars that were similarly affected by the problems that made the Alto look so bad. Despite holding the idea of Standard cars as ridiculous, I took the time to say “Hey. That’s not right. They don’t all look like that.”
You COMPLETELY missed my point. Now maybe you just hopped in here and saw the above exchange without the full context. Let me repost.
There, in case you missed it, is my request to give us the OPTION to install them. That way, no one is forced to damage their HDTVs or eyes with such crimes against graphics appearing on their screens.
Again in case you missed it, OPTIONS, everyone's buzzword, at least in other subjects.
One more time, in case you're skimming, OPTIONS.
And by the way, OPTIONS.
There's "options", like: "Hey, the ability to control how the HUD is presented would be a nice little change since it should be simple to do when there is already a menu option for it with
most of the settings."
There's also "options" like: "Hey, an event creator would be an awesome option that would massively increase the game replayability; and it would just be a matter of giving the players control of something that PD normally just does themselves."
There’s even “options” for PD to include that shouldn’t be an issue in the first place because they have to purposely take the option away with restrictions, like “let the player play the online mode that made up the majority of your advertising as soon as they plop the disc in”
Then there's options that would require PD to essentially create two entirely different career modes to utilize the optional content. And to do that despite them failing to do anything of the sort for any of the DLC in GT5 (even the things everyone got). And to do that despite them having serious problems utilizing the majority of the content that comes with the base game for a
single career mode. And perhaps that is why such “options” are considered unfeasible at best; or at worst an excuse to make it so that “option” is just required for everyone (like it was for GT5 and GT6, despite all of the “if you don’t like them don’t use them” protests).
That might be hard to do when I usually just pass on by little tornadic ruler shaking posts with a pony on top. I'm getting pretty good at recognizing posters who really don't contribute much actual discussion around here.
It’s funny that you say this, but then try to offer an “olive branch” as if your posting habits are my fault.
You were already were pretty good at saying something, having someone point out that what you said is inaccurate or not entirely relevant to the discussion, then act like that person had an arm growing out of their ass (you even were banned for it when you tried it on a moderator who refused to put up with it, nevermind the public warnings about it since then). You’ve been good at dismissing entire arguments out of hand as just being invalid because they were the work of “forum zombies” and “grumps” and what have you. You’ve completely ignored inconvenient points and misrepresented arguments when it was beneficial for you to do so at least as long as Zer0 has; though certainly without the level of infamy attached. You’ve even graduated to making huge, not necessarily informed points in response to something that riled you up about how “full of wrong” it is, then stating outright when someone tries to further explain their original point how not worth your time they are (this one has become a favorite of you of late, too. I especially love the times where you
specifically ask someone to critique what you are saying,
then do it anyway).
So where do you go from there? You constantly like to question my reasoning for posting in lieu of actually responding to what I’m saying, so I’ll make this blunt: I’m perfectly content with the knowledge that even if I burn bridges and look like an asshole in the process, so long as incorrect information isn’t spread, especially not by intentionally people who stand to gain by their viewpoint being accepted as fact, I’m operating on a net gain. Because on a fan site which has contributed several very big incorrect pieces of information being paraded around gaming journalism sites as the truth (the Alto Works from above, or the “progressive damage” system idea that sprouted up when GT5 first released), I happen to think doing so is important; and it’s a very rare exception that someone I piss off to the extent that they hold a grudge about it is someone I would ever hold in particular regard in the first place, since I’ve been here more than long enough to see that when that happens it is usually from someone who has a frequent trend of just stating things to be true with little regard for if they actually are.
Are you content with doing the same thing to try to get the blatant contempt you hold for people complaining issues dear to them (even if they are of wildly differing "objective" importance) to be held in contempt by everyone; with the only leg you usually have to stand on over actual points of fact being “someone that this subforum holds in respect said something similar to something I’m saying now”?
)
)
