Then lied. There is literally a cutescene in the gameplay showed.

Nope Cory Barlog said that the game will be continuous and will have no cutscenes.

The game is narrative heavy as we have seen.

He didn't say there wouldn't be any cutscenes. He said that the game wouldn't have loading screens... -__-

You are quite quick to pass accusations. Before calling someone a liar, maybe you should at least google some information. Not like it's hard and time consuming to do. ¬_¬

I'm not going to fact check every comment I respond to.

Then don't pass blind accusations.

It's not a blind accusation if I was lead to believe I could still see.

LOL. It's his fault if you don't inform yourself and pass hasty judgement based on info given by a random misinformed forum dweller that you were sure wasn't right in the first place... 

Sure, buddy. Whatever you say. 

I don't know why this is eating at you so much, but now that you've accused me of being "quick to pass allegations" and won't let it go, it's eating at me too, so please grant me the honor and privilege of clarifying something for you.

My original response said "Then lied." Now obviously this is a typo. What I meant to type was "Then he lied." The operative word here is "then," which functionally makes my statement an "if, then" statement; in other words, a "conditional statement." A conditional statement uses a hypothesis and a conclusion to formulaically determine whether something is true or false. That's its function - to determine; not to claim and not to charge. The hypothesis here, the contextually implied "if," is that "Cory Barlog said that the game will be continuous and will have no cutscenes," while the conclusion, the clearly (though admittedly incompletely) stated "then," is that "he lied." "If Cory Barlog said that the game will be continuous and will have no cutscenes, then he lied." That, by the function of the english language, is the sentiment that what I said was meant to convey.

I'm explaining all of this to you to make you aware, because you clearly weren't already, that saying that "he lied" was conditional to the first statement being true. That is the operative function of the word "then" in that statement. He lied if and only if he said that the game has no cutscenes. Saying "then he lied" is, by every function of the english language once again, deterministic. I wasn't accusing or assuming that he lied, I was making a conditional statement that came to a conclusion in the hypothetical event that he did lie.

So not only was what I said not a blind accusation (because, as I stated previously, I was lead to believe I could still see), it wasn't even an accusation. An accusation, by definition, is a charge or a claim that someone did something illegal or wrong (ie. lie or be "very quick to pass accusations") What I said wasn't a charge and what I said wasn't a claim; it was a conditional conclusion.

That means that your very own accusation that I am "very quick to pass accusations" is based on a clear and proven fundemental misunderstanding, or at least misinterpretation, of the word "accusation" itself. Before passing quick accusations, maybe you should at least google what the word means. Not like it is hard or time consuming to do. ^-^

It's not eating at me. You ususally come up with counter arguments when you know someone here is mistaken. But in this case, you were quick to assume Barlog lied without even bothering to provide evidence that what was being claimed by GOWTLOZ was false/wrong. 

As for the "then" part. That's quite the spin. Sure it's conditional. That's doesn't make your statement any less hasty and lazy. In other circumpstences, I am sure you would have taken the time to prove the guy wrong. But for some reason, for this game, you didn't bother going for a factual stance.

"But in this case, you were quick to assu-" Stop. I already made it clear that I didn't assume Balrog lied. And it's not a spin. It's grammar. It makes my statement wholy unhasty, though I can agree that it was lazy. I don't have the time or the care to fact check every forum post I respond to when there is a communication tool available that absolves me from always needing to do that ala conditional statements. You said it yourself - I usually come up with counter arguments when I know when someone here is mistaken, like I just did at length in my previous post response to you.

But there was no counter argument to make here, because I wasn't making that statement to make the argument that GOWTLOW was wrong about Balrog lying. In fact, once again, I never accused Balrog of lying at all. I was making the conditional statement to set up my primary statement, and the object of my response thread, which was that there was a cutscene in the gameplay shown of the new GoW, therefore it won't have what I wish to see in a video game but haven't seen yet. Proving, or even knowing, whether or not Balrog lied was irrelevant to the argument I was making, so I made that statement conditional and moved on, as should you right now.