Final-Fan said:
Lord Flashheart said:
Are you serious.
For you who wasn't involved the part you deem important was the part I admitted (seriously how many more times) I misread but for me who was involved it was him saying i called him a biased troll for not saying gt in a thread. Bit of an oversimplification.
It was for more than that and even that wasn't to accurate.
He claimed he meant forza and gt but didn't say that and didn't imply that anywhere.
That was backtracking or a blatant lie.
Seeing as he was so kind to send out personal messages I'll follow suit
He called me an idiot and the mods didn't do anything to him. I made an account to complain. I can respond though. And seriously go look at slowmos comment. He is a fucking idiot. And what you are doing is cherry picking. Which you were so adamantly against. I show you 70 comments and you show me.... 1 questionable one. Which was the unrealistic damage... which it was.
You get shown a comment you made by posters on here then claim it's out of context.
Either you are right or you need to learn how to get the point in your head across accurately onto paper so to speak.
Or maybe you just don't see when you're wrong but you do see when you're wrong in other people.
Also you are incredibly rude and self-righteous.
You call people fucking this and that.
don't pretend you're being picked on. Being called an idiot is nothing to what you call people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPmkWOXp7mo&feature=player_embedded
This is a crash test done at 40MPH... Look at the demo. Tell me if the car looks slightly as bad as this car. Keep in mind the car in the video was going 60mph. No, that wasn't spreading. FUD. It was stating facts. Just cause the 360 fans didn't very much like it. And I will openly admit I said that to get on some of their nerves. Just because of all the "GT5 damage isn't realistic" that was going on at the time. But still you can't tell me that was realistic.
You're taking the word 'realistic' and taking it out of context. Something you disagree with apparantly.
There are saying it's the most realistic racing sim ever but you see that as 100% just like the real world.
You're being pedantic and you know it. It's cosmetic so it would look silly if it had the entire front flat as a pancake yet it still drove normally. If you take it of cosmetic it does crumple more realistically so you can be out of the race on the first corner just like Forza 2. I don't see you critising GT:5 for its piss poor attempt. Wonder why? By twisting what the devs say, cherrypicking if you will, and then looking for any unrealistic (we know how realism means so much to you) flaw you are spreading fud.
The game never said this game=real world. They said it's as close as you can get which is correct, or will be when it's released, hence the word SIM.
Simulator not real life experiance. Learn what that means in racing games. GT has been calling itself
THE REAL DRIVING SIMULATOR
Lets look at that through your eyes shall we.
Real driving? So I get into a real car and drive? No?
I have to hold a joypad and sit in front of a console and watch a TV? That's not real driving?
See how pedantic it is?
Now if I was to go round saying it's not real racing because where's the car? Do I have to take it to the local patrol station to fill it up and how much will it cost me? I would be spreading lies. Fud.
So do you pick apart GT:5 with the same vigor?
No wonder why? |
Are you kidding? My point was that both GT5 and F3 aren't realistic. I don't see your point. Go look at the recent GT5 threads and you will see the same people in that thread not saying anything are the same people who shout "GT5 ISNT REALISTIC!" |
No you just said Forza. If that's your point the you have to say that. You have to include GT in the comment. You have a rep as one of the biggest Sony fanboys here so why would you become pragmatic all of a sudden? Now this is your bias showing itself yet again.
And if we are talking about damage the GT is poor and Forza is better. Even if they ported over Forza 2 damage it would be better. PD really need to work on it but you being a big player has played Forza 2 to death and seen what the Damage is like.
Didn't think so. |
Are you a fucking idiot? It was a forza thread. People who bring GT up in those get banned. People who bring Forza up in GT get banned. Why would I say GT? Shut the fuck up. |
See, you was banned for your name calling and there you continue with it.
"Are you kidding? My point was that both GT5 and F3 aren't realistic."
If that was your point then you should have said that. You only said it about Forza therefore you only meant Forza.
If you know mentioning GT would get you banned but you was trying to make a comment about both games then either face the ban or say nothing.
You commented on a Forza video talking about what you seen in that video. You was being very specific. GT never came into it and you never intended it to. This was an attack on Forza plain and simple. I don't remember seeing any video in that thread at that point of a car in GT slamming into the wall at 70 so you could only have been talking about Forza. The topic of the thread and the topic at hand. Stop trying to spin it.
Bias plain and simple. |
no not biased. I showed you an example of someone bringing up forza in a gt thread and there are more of them. I however wont be able to find them because they are probablly off their punishment. I stuck to the thread topic. nothing biased. Just fanboys jumping to conclusion. One even apologizes for that later in the thread. Proof it wasn't bias? i think so |
And there are more examples of people bringing up GT in Forza (as well as any other driving game) it swings both ways but hovers with the GT crowd doing it more |
Exactly, so why should I bring GT up like you are suggesting? So I could get banned? Face it, I stick to Sony threads. I don't spread FUD around. You are the biased one here. That's why you are so quick to label me. Just because I show favoritism to a console the second I say anything about the other I'm a troll? No. |
Now everyone can make up their own mind.
Why bring GT and forza into it when we was talking about why he was banned?
If he meant something why didn't he say it?
Why doesn't he say it about other games he was defending?
He admitted he said it to cause trouble?
If he sticks to Sony threads then why is he in this one?
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]"
He admits he did it to get on peoples nerves.
And did he send you the other conversation? |
He left out the first four quotes, which frankly make you both look pretty bad. He shows a temper and admits to making sockpuppets (I think) and also to basically posting the original remarks to "get even" with people posting negative info about GT5.
On the other hand, you show your own bad side, and make some ridiculous attempt to use strict logic to condemn a slogan in mockery of what you presume JEDE3 is doing, but that was actually a really pointless rant of yours, which did not tie in to any specific claim of where JEDE3 acted like that. I don't see you on his back for his "bad side" I'm using strict logic? He asked me if he was a troll or not it had to be one or the other? It doesn't work like that and if he doesn't know it then you should educate your firend. I repsonded to his pointless claims that a car in a computer game with "cosmetic only" switch on should crumple like a car in real life being driven into a wall. It's a game. On forza 2 if you have it set so the dameage impares performance that car would be out of the race like he wants so it will be like that in this one. Not a rediculous attempt at logic just basic observations. His crash test video was a rediculous attempt at logic. A computer game with cosmetic on should be like real life? Good one. Doesn't sound so much like a pointless rant but you would've seen that if you wasn't so desperate to prove me wrong and stick up for your friend.
(Not to mention the fact that you practically contradict yourself: 'Your objection that it's not realistic is faulty because you're being insanely strict in your consideration of "realistic"!' vs. 'Your objection that it's not realistic is faulty because it's only unrealistic because it's on cosmetic mode and it would look silly if you were driving something with no front end!')Do you know what contradiction is? We was refering to the devs claims it will be the most realistic driving sim. You're taking the word realistic to mean the same as him. You're seeing alot of things his way and ignoring common sense. It will be the most realistic driving sim doesn't mean it has to be like real life. It means it has to be more realistic than the other games out there which by default will make it the closest to real life. If you expect it to be perfect when you have the options to make the game easier turn low then I geuess you sit there playing games commenting on how that's not how it is in the real world.
JEDE3's original post, while made in perhaps a poor spirit, was on topic and not (IIRC) particularly inflammatory in substance, any more than ANY reasonable criticism might be considered "inflammatory" by thin-skinned fans. As for his tone, it is pretty heated, but then so is yours. (Actually, you are probably more arrogant/condescending than hotheaded, but your tone is at least as inflammatory as his.)
To get back to the heart of this little side venture: you claim that your main argument in the post in which you misread JEDE3's post remained sound, and are apparently claiming that that main argument was that he was trolling. I think this is a bit rich coming from someone who recently claimed he kept asking for more and more evidence just to see how long the other guy would oblige, and taunted him for how long he did so, but whatever. Not my fault he's a dancing monkey. The main point was the lie that that I called him a biased fanboy troll or the spin that when I suggested he say what he means he tries to twist it to be something bad.
You: "Looks like you're seeing things your way again. The title to the message telling me why you got banned was "been banned for calling nightsurge a douche" now it's because you mentioned a game in another games thread!?! Do you constantly lose grip on reality?
"You criticised the damage graphics in forza then claimed you meant that both Forza and GT aren't realistic. without mentioning GT so I said if that was the point then you should mention GT as well or it looks like you're trolling."
I'll tell you right now, the first part stands out a lot more than the second (what with all the exclamation points), but let's go with your claim that the second part was actually more important. I'll admit that JEDE3's sanity does not directly bear on whether he's trolling when he talks about Forza's drawbacks without mentioning GT5's, so the fact that your first argument was obliterated does not invalidate the second.Here's part of the original comment "Dude, that's how he is. Don't argue with him. He called me a biased fanboy troll because I didn't mention GT5 in a forza 3 thread. When I told him people get banned for mentioning another game in a specific games thread he basically told me I should have done it anyway to not look so biased." He claimed people get banned for mentioning GT but there was plenty of references to gt in that thread with little to no bans and saying what he 'claimed' he meant wouldn't have got him banned so he should've said it instead of leaving a comment which does not in any way get his point or intentions across. I never called him a biased fanboy troll for not mentioning GT in forza. I said he was biased for claiming he also meant GT when I challenged him on that comment. See he's seeing things his way and they way you're under his thumb so are you. So his
No, what invalidates it is the idea that he has to end all criticism of Forza 3's damage simulation with adding something about how GT5's is also bad, even if the thread is only about Forza. Clearly that's a silly argument and you ought to be ashamed for claiming that he should do so to avoid the appearance of trolling. Are you serious? If he means forza and GT in a comment then he should make sure everyone knows he meant forza and GT. He claims after the fact that he 'meant' GT but there is nothing in your friends original comment to imply that. He commented about a video of forza yet meant GT as well? Did you see a clip of a car hitting the wall at 70 in GT in that thread to show he was talking about GT as well? I never said he has to end all critism's of forza's damage with adding something about GT only when he means forza and gt. IS that unreasonable? Why do you have a problem with that? It's basic. If you talk about something you include it in your comment.He's taking my suggestion that in that one comment if he meant GT as well he should say GT (makes sense right?) and doing what he does which is to take the comment twist it and try to use it agaisnt me. He made a stupid remake which was false (why don't you call your friend out on that?) That I claimed every comment should end with a reference to GT and you took that as gospel and now trying to use it against me to defend your friend. Please show me where I said all comments to do with Forza damage should include GT? You can't
My comment isn't invalidated yours is.
You harp on and on endlessly about the one (admittedly clearly wrong) claim he made that 'his point was that both Forza and GT5' have this problem. I am willing to believe that he misspoke and meant to say that that's what his POSITION is, not what his POINT was, since he clearly should have known that his own post, which he just wrote, did not actually mention GT5. Yet I admit I made a mistake and it's used to discredit everything I say but he makes a mistake and refuses to admit it and no-one does anything? He was commenting on the video which is a video of Forza yet you think he meant Gt as well? He was very specific in what he said, what it was in reference to and where he said it. Also it's you two that keep bringing it up, I just respond.
As for your question "Why bring GT and forza into it when we was talking about why he was banned?":
The answer is simple: because that was the subject of the one out of 70 comments that you were apparently able to find objectionable content in. (To support your claim that he went around spreading FUD or whatever.) We was talking about his attitude, the swearing and insulting arrogant behaviour that got banned then he turns it to something else. What does the Forza thing have to do with him getting banned for calling someone a douche in a completely different thread. Also it seems others on here have posted other comments of his (I couldn't be arsed to look myself as he just claims its out of context) so what does that say?
As for "If he meant something why didn't he say it?" (referring, I presume, to what I spoke of three paragraphs up):
It's not like you're Shakespeare yourself, so it may behoove you to not cast stones from your glass house. Wow, the most rediculous comment yet. Are you Shakespear? so how can you comment? You don't have to be Shakespear to be able to say what you meant. It's probably the first rule in saying what you want others to hear if you want them to understand what youmean.
As for "If he sticks to Sony threads then why is he in this one?":
I think it is reasonable to not assume he meant absolutely 100% of the time, especially since he was responding to the accusation/implication (I forget which) that he went around the MS forums a lot spreading FUD. 1 thread out of a dozen spent in MS-land is not supportive of that. And yet I say he's biased and was trolling, refer to earlier, and that's supposed to mean that I think every single comment is pure trolling to him. Why don't you get onto your friend for that? He works in absolutes when he feels like it but when the finger is pointed to him it's 'Well I meant this'
|
