illiteratewhino said: You should compare both games on the same screen. If after that you have the same impression, then you need to go get your eyes checked.
Both are running on different resolutions so putting them on the same size screen will always give Forza the advantage , smaller screen = forza win because of a higher resolution on a smaller screen and on a bigger screen the PSP will look stretched out.
But the GT PSP looks amazingly similar to Forza on a TV.
Faxanadu said: Nice trolling. I would even say it is ban worthy.
These days you pretty much need to rule 34 ioi to get a ban on this site.
For the last 24 hours however they've been clamping things down a bit tho, some of the most active and blatant trolls have been hit with the banstick. Let's hope it lasts...
Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).
ssj12 said: I think this isn't a fair comparison because GT PSP doesn't need to run at an insane resolution like GT5 and Forza 3.
Now that trailer for GT5 vs Forza 3... there is no comparison. GT5 >>>>> Forza 3 especially in the car models.
Well of course it is , the GT trailer was cgi so.....
How do you know it's CGI?
Because they barely talked about the game , the game that is part their biggest franchise was treated as an after thought because all they showed for it was a teaser a cgi teaser at that.
I still don't understand why you can conclusively, with all absolute confidence, that it is a FACT that the trailer was CGI?
Because unless sony is run by stoned out monkeys , it s practically imposible for sony to not hype a gameplay trailer for their BIGGEST game.(Especially with the forza "definitive racing game" stuff put on yesterday)
It's still not "impossible" like you said, it's only your suspcions based on the fact that you don't know what Sony's thinking and rationale (since you're not in the company). I'm asking you to show me concrete, objective proof how the trailer (or parts of it) were CGI, no matter how illogical you may think Sony is acting:
Have I ever claimed it was gameplay? No. Now you're being caught red handed, trying to switch the topic at hand and put the attention on me.
You made a claim, and I simply asked your reason. I won't doubt it if at least some parts of it were CGI. I simply don't have the expertise to know it or not. On the other hand, because you made a claim, extremely confidently, you surely must have some expertise and concrete facts/proofs to show that the entire trailer or parts of it were CGI.
I'm simply a person asking questions, not making claims, not really debating, only pressing the same question that you keep avoiding.
First of all , you did not even put your point into the discussion so I assumed that your stance on the trailer was gameplay because of you trying to interogate me.
Secondly, I do believe that it is cgi because of the points I put above , and you dont need concrete proof to make an educated guess. Whos to stop me from saying gta 5 will release on the n-gage in september if we need concrete proof to say other wise?
And I answered your questions ,all of them. I honestly dont know what your trying to do but you know as well as I do that my points are valid so why continue this?
If somebody asks you a question, and presses for an actual reason when you avoided to give one, means they're opposed or hostile to you? I was never hostile to you, at most only annoyed that you kept avoiding answering my question. You use the word "interrogate" which I think is pretty excessive. Lets not play word games, and replace "ask" with "interrogate" to make me sound like I'm hostile. I'm sorry that I didn't forget my question, and continued to ask you to just answer it when you failed to do so the first time.
You needed concrete proof because you stated that it was a fact that the GT5 trailer was CGI. You didn't say "I think", "probably", etc. You said "Well of course it is , the GT trailer was cgi so....." That doesn't seem like an educated guess, to me.
I asked you to give me concrete objective evidence, in order to back up your statement that was presented as a fact. All you said was "It'll be weird/stupid for Sony not to hype up this game and trailer at E3". They're not valid, because as much as your argument might make sense to the common sense of many, they're not objective facts, which are needed to support factual statements. You can't just support a factual statement with opinions and perspectives.
So we can stop this now, as you've admitted that you don't have concrete evidence, and you never meant to say that the GT5 trailer was CGI as a fact, and you actually meant to say it as a guess. It's a simple and common mistake of mispeaking/typing, just say from the beginning "Oh, I didn't mean to say it as a fact, it's just my opinion/guess", instead of wasting a few posts before saying that.
I have answered your questions but you keep trying to change them to be within the context of hypothetical(and frankly impossible) situations. Its not my problem if you ignore what I'm saying but at least disagree with them and not act like they dont exist.
And yes quite frankly your interogating me , your singling me out of everyone who is saying its cgi or gameplay making it seem what im saying is any different from them.
It is extremely common in the gaming industry for trailers not talked about alot being cgi , its nothing new and I dont know why your even argueing with this.
Of course there is no concrete evidence that but the way I see it , its fact>logic>being illogical , there is no fact that its not cgi but it is definitely logical to say its cgi with the points I put above and definitely illogical to say otherwise. So until it is proven other wise , that teaser was cgi with touched up replay videos.
I asked you to show me the parts which were CGI (unless the whole thing was CGI), and to present objective facts and evidence that it's CGI. I remember somebody arguing that it wasn't CGI due to clipping going on in one of the screenshots. That's an example of someone with some ammount of knowledge/experise and using that to argue it.
On the other hand your entire argument was "It is extremely common... for trailers not talked about alot being cgi". That's not concrete proof that backs up your statement: "Well of course it is , the GT trailer was cgi". You should have then said "It's probable that it's CGI".
Unless you can calculate that the probability of it not being CGI is extremely slim to the point of being pretty much 0 (which I don't know how), you have so far absolutely no objective, VISIBLE, proof that the entire trailer was CGI, as you originally stated (I like how you change your position without simply admitting you made a mistake, didn't clarify enough beforehand).
Look, I'm not arguing that the trailer was CGI, or that it was all in game footage. I have NO EXPERTISE and knowledge to even analyze the video to give proof and evidence that it was CGI or not. Because you originally stated, as a fact, that the entire trailer was CGI, I expected you to easily have the expertise and ability to say "You can clearly see in this frame, or at X:XX that it's CGI". Rather, you just skipped the question, and said "Well it's weird if they didn't hype this trailer up" or "Most trailers that aren't hyped up are CGI".
So just man up, and said you made a mistake. That instead of presenting your statement as a fact, you meant to state it as an educated guess. That you meant to say "Probably".
Nice contradiction there , you promote someones post by saying this poster has some amount of knowledge on the subject even though you stress that you have no knowledge on the subject. Is it enough to post something that may seem knowledgable , but actually is false , to be considered knowledgable by you , even though you have no knowledge to recognize the knowledge?
And when did I ever even say I have any technical knowledge on the subject , I am just speaking on common business practices and quite honestly common sense. Ever hear the expression , if it looks like a rat , smells like a rat , its a rat.......well this saying can be used for this situation. If everything sony has done(read above reasons) made it look like a cgi trailer ,then it is a cgi trailer.
Do you realize how pathetic the bolded part sounded? Is this honestly what this is all about?......sad , sad , sad.
This is kinda ironic isnt it , I remember you trying to stop me and cgi from continuing a pointless argument but now im going to follow your advice then and "be the better man , and not ruin it for the rest of [us] by having this argument on the thread."
I am willing to continue this on pm if you answer me as to why you have such an agenda against me? You single me out from everyone , even when I have valid reasons as to why it is cgi and they dont. And please dont say you dont because no one would go so far as to get a "probably" out of someone even though there are bigger fish to fry on the forums.
N64 is the ONLY console of the fifth generation!!!
ssj12 said: I think this isn't a fair comparison because GT PSP doesn't need to run at an insane resolution like GT5 and Forza 3.
Now that trailer for GT5 vs Forza 3... there is no comparison. GT5 >>>>> Forza 3 especially in the car models.
Well of course it is , the GT trailer was cgi so.....
How do you know it's CGI?
Because they barely talked about the game , the game that is part their biggest franchise was treated as an after thought because all they showed for it was a teaser a cgi teaser at that.
I still don't understand why you can conclusively, with all absolute confidence, that it is a FACT that the trailer was CGI?
Because unless sony is run by stoned out monkeys , it s practically imposible for sony to not hype a gameplay trailer for their BIGGEST game.(Especially with the forza "definitive racing game" stuff put on yesterday)
It's still not "impossible" like you said, it's only your suspcions based on the fact that you don't know what Sony's thinking and rationale (since you're not in the company). I'm asking you to show me concrete, objective proof how the trailer (or parts of it) were CGI, no matter how illogical you may think Sony is acting:
Have I ever claimed it was gameplay? No. Now you're being caught red handed, trying to switch the topic at hand and put the attention on me.
You made a claim, and I simply asked your reason. I won't doubt it if at least some parts of it were CGI. I simply don't have the expertise to know it or not. On the other hand, because you made a claim, extremely confidently, you surely must have some expertise and concrete facts/proofs to show that the entire trailer or parts of it were CGI.
I'm simply a person asking questions, not making claims, not really debating, only pressing the same question that you keep avoiding.
First of all , you did not even put your point into the discussion so I assumed that your stance on the trailer was gameplay because of you trying to interogate me.
Secondly, I do believe that it is cgi because of the points I put above , and you dont need concrete proof to make an educated guess. Whos to stop me from saying gta 5 will release on the n-gage in september if we need concrete proof to say other wise?
And I answered your questions ,all of them. I honestly dont know what your trying to do but you know as well as I do that my points are valid so why continue this?
If somebody asks you a question, and presses for an actual reason when you avoided to give one, means they're opposed or hostile to you? I was never hostile to you, at most only annoyed that you kept avoiding answering my question. You use the word "interrogate" which I think is pretty excessive. Lets not play word games, and replace "ask" with "interrogate" to make me sound like I'm hostile. I'm sorry that I didn't forget my question, and continued to ask you to just answer it when you failed to do so the first time.
You needed concrete proof because you stated that it was a fact that the GT5 trailer was CGI. You didn't say "I think", "probably", etc. You said "Well of course it is , the GT trailer was cgi so....." That doesn't seem like an educated guess, to me.
I asked you to give me concrete objective evidence, in order to back up your statement that was presented as a fact. All you said was "It'll be weird/stupid for Sony not to hype up this game and trailer at E3". They're not valid, because as much as your argument might make sense to the common sense of many, they're not objective facts, which are needed to support factual statements. You can't just support a factual statement with opinions and perspectives.
So we can stop this now, as you've admitted that you don't have concrete evidence, and you never meant to say that the GT5 trailer was CGI as a fact, and you actually meant to say it as a guess. It's a simple and common mistake of mispeaking/typing, just say from the beginning "Oh, I didn't mean to say it as a fact, it's just my opinion/guess", instead of wasting a few posts before saying that.
I have answered your questions but you keep trying to change them to be within the context of hypothetical(and frankly impossible) situations. Its not my problem if you ignore what I'm saying but at least disagree with them and not act like they dont exist.
And yes quite frankly your interogating me , your singling me out of everyone who is saying its cgi or gameplay making it seem what im saying is any different from them.
It is extremely common in the gaming industry for trailers not talked about alot being cgi , its nothing new and I dont know why your even argueing with this.
Of course there is no concrete evidence that but the way I see it , its fact>logic>being illogical , there is no fact that its not cgi but it is definitely logical to say its cgi with the points I put above and definitely illogical to say otherwise. So until it is proven other wise , that teaser was cgi with touched up replay videos.
I asked you to show me the parts which were CGI (unless the whole thing was CGI), and to present objective facts and evidence that it's CGI. I remember somebody arguing that it wasn't CGI due to clipping going on in one of the screenshots. That's an example of someone with some ammount of knowledge/experise and using that to argue it.
On the other hand your entire argument was "It is extremely common... for trailers not talked about alot being cgi". That's not concrete proof that backs up your statement: "Well of course it is , the GT trailer was cgi". You should have then said "It's probable that it's CGI".
Unless you can calculate that the probability of it not being CGI is extremely slim to the point of being pretty much 0 (which I don't know how), you have so far absolutely no objective, VISIBLE, proof that the entire trailer was CGI, as you originally stated (I like how you change your position without simply admitting you made a mistake, didn't clarify enough beforehand).
Look, I'm not arguing that the trailer was CGI, or that it was all in game footage. I have NO EXPERTISE and knowledge to even analyze the video to give proof and evidence that it was CGI or not. Because you originally stated, as a fact, that the entire trailer was CGI, I expected you to easily have the expertise and ability to say "You can clearly see in this frame, or at X:XX that it's CGI". Rather, you just skipped the question, and said "Well it's weird if they didn't hype this trailer up" or "Most trailers that aren't hyped up are CGI".
So just man up, and said you made a mistake. That instead of presenting your statement as a fact, you meant to state it as an educated guess. That you meant to say "Probably".
Nice contradiction there , you promote someones post by saying this poster has some amount of knowledge on the subject even though you stress that you have no knowledge on the subject. Is it enough to post something that may seem knowledgable , but actually is false , to be considered knowledgable by you , even though you have no knowledge to recognize the knowledge?
And when did I ever even say I have any technical knowledge on the subject , I am just speaking on common business practices and quite honestly common sense. Ever hear the expression , if it looks like a rat , smells like a rat , its a rat.......well this saying can be used for this situation. If everything sony has done(read above reasons) made it look like a cgi trailer ,then it is a cgi trailer.
Do you realize how pathetic the bolded part sounded? Is this honestly what this is all about?......sad , sad , sad.
This is kinda ironic isnt it , I remember you trying to stop me and cgi from continuing a pointless argument but now im going to follow your advice then and "be the better man , and not ruin it for the rest of [us] by having this argument on the thread."
I am willing to continue this on pm if you answer me as to why you have such an agenda against me? You single me out from everyone , even when I have valid reasons as to why it is cgi and they dont. And please dont say you dont because no one would go so far as to get a "probably" out of someone even though there are bigger fish to fry on the forums.
How was that bold statement a contradiction? I never promoted ssj's statements, disagreed with your's, nor push my own opinions about the GT5 trailer. In fact, like said in one of my previous posts, which you either rudely ignored or refused to read, I believed that the GT5 trailer was CGI, only that I didn't have the expertise, and therefore proof, to say that as a fact.
I was ready to believe what you said, if you provided me with the direct evidence that's necessary for a factual statement. Evidence that can be used to verify the fact/statement. You gave me INCONCLUSIVE proof. If you were arguing that Sony and the gaming industry have a trend, and therefore the GT trailer was probably CGI, I wouldn't have come to you for some expertise. Instead you were arguing that the GT5 trailer was definetly CGI, so I can only assume that if you were to make such a factual statement, you'll have hard evidence.
Even if something looks like a rat, and smells like a rat, you might just be looking at an over grown mice that smells like shit. I'll rather you point out the distinctive traits of the animal to show me that it is indeed a rat or not. That's how science works. You provide facts, you don't just say "It's common sense". Common sense was that the world was flat. Common sense was that the sun and moon were disks.
I wanted you to give me VISIBLE evidence, if you were going to stand by your original, factual statement.
However, I soon realized that you didn't mean to give a factual statement, and you were just trying to give an educated guess, and made a mistake. To confirm that, I was asking you to now clarify your original statement. You've yet to do that after 2-3 posts.
As for the "better man" statement I made (and you're calling me the one with an personal agenda? You've remembered a post another person made weeks ago, that's what I call obsessive), from what I recall I said that you and CGI were DERAILING the thread. While I guess you can say that technically we're going off topic by talking about GT5 on a GTPSP thread, it's close and relevant enough, much more relevant to thread than what you and CGI were talking about on the GoW thread. If you've answered my questions, not only would this dialogue have ended quicker, it would have resulted in the sharing of knowledge and interesting facts.
As for the bolded statement (if you haven't noticed, I'm going line by line), how is that pathetic? Making an mistake is perfectly fine, and I'm not gloating over it. It's your stubborness to either clarify your original post that's pathetic. Did you mean to say that the GT5 was a trailer as a fact, or as an educated guess? That's all I'm asking. And yes, this is what it's all about as of now, as I do not even know what you actually meant. I've been waiting you to provide me direct evidence, and now I'm waiting for you to clarify your original statement
As I've said before, we're talking about something relevant in this thread. If anything, you're the one being unproductive by making a question an "argument", and not answering the original question. Please show me, where in the trailer that indicated it was CGI. If you didn't mean to say that the trailer was definetly CGI, please say so yourself, as I don't want to put words in your mouth.
As for your "agenda" and "singling" out, I guess in retrospect I should have asked ssj for his reason's as well, but I never had any malicious intent toward you. I was interested in you, because I believed, after your confident and fact professing statement you could have taught me something about CGI. Instead it turned out you didn't have the experitise NOR evidence, to back your statement back, and you simply won't clarify your original post.
I stated before, I think that parts of the movie is CGI as well. Did you hear that? I AGREE with you (for the most part, as what you've said in the OP, you said the whole trailer was CGI), but I didn't have any expertise and proof to state it as a fact, only as an assumption. I WANTED to hear your expertise and proof (which you should have, if you're making such an statement of fact), and you've yet to provide me one, only indirectly saying (or me over infering) that you've made an educated guess.
So will you please go back to your original statement, and fix it, if you didn't mean what you originally meant (a factual statement).
If you still stand by your statement, professing that as a fact the GT5 trailer is CGI, provide concrete evidence that can be used to conclusively verify your statement and enlighten us all (and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. The whole intention of my original question was for all of us to be enlightened by you).
ssj12 said: I think this isn't a fair comparison because GT PSP doesn't need to run at an insane resolution like GT5 and Forza 3.
Now that trailer for GT5 vs Forza 3... there is no comparison. GT5 >>>>> Forza 3 especially in the car models.
Well of course it is , the GT trailer was cgi so.....
How do you know it's CGI?
Because they barely talked about the game , the game that is part their biggest franchise was treated as an after thought because all they showed for it was a teaser a cgi teaser at that.
I still don't understand why you can conclusively, with all absolute confidence, that it is a FACT that the trailer was CGI?
Because unless sony is run by stoned out monkeys , it s practically imposible for sony to not hype a gameplay trailer for their BIGGEST game.(Especially with the forza "definitive racing game" stuff put on yesterday)
It's still not "impossible" like you said, it's only your suspcions based on the fact that you don't know what Sony's thinking and rationale (since you're not in the company). I'm asking you to show me concrete, objective proof how the trailer (or parts of it) were CGI, no matter how illogical you may think Sony is acting:
Have I ever claimed it was gameplay? No. Now you're being caught red handed, trying to switch the topic at hand and put the attention on me.
You made a claim, and I simply asked your reason. I won't doubt it if at least some parts of it were CGI. I simply don't have the expertise to know it or not. On the other hand, because you made a claim, extremely confidently, you surely must have some expertise and concrete facts/proofs to show that the entire trailer or parts of it were CGI.
I'm simply a person asking questions, not making claims, not really debating, only pressing the same question that you keep avoiding.
First of all , you did not even put your point into the discussion so I assumed that your stance on the trailer was gameplay because of you trying to interogate me.
Secondly, I do believe that it is cgi because of the points I put above , and you dont need concrete proof to make an educated guess. Whos to stop me from saying gta 5 will release on the n-gage in september if we need concrete proof to say other wise?
And I answered your questions ,all of them. I honestly dont know what your trying to do but you know as well as I do that my points are valid so why continue this?
If somebody asks you a question, and presses for an actual reason when you avoided to give one, means they're opposed or hostile to you? I was never hostile to you, at most only annoyed that you kept avoiding answering my question. You use the word "interrogate" which I think is pretty excessive. Lets not play word games, and replace "ask" with "interrogate" to make me sound like I'm hostile. I'm sorry that I didn't forget my question, and continued to ask you to just answer it when you failed to do so the first time.
You needed concrete proof because you stated that it was a fact that the GT5 trailer was CGI. You didn't say "I think", "probably", etc. You said "Well of course it is , the GT trailer was cgi so....." That doesn't seem like an educated guess, to me.
I asked you to give me concrete objective evidence, in order to back up your statement that was presented as a fact. All you said was "It'll be weird/stupid for Sony not to hype up this game and trailer at E3". They're not valid, because as much as your argument might make sense to the common sense of many, they're not objective facts, which are needed to support factual statements. You can't just support a factual statement with opinions and perspectives.
So we can stop this now, as you've admitted that you don't have concrete evidence, and you never meant to say that the GT5 trailer was CGI as a fact, and you actually meant to say it as a guess. It's a simple and common mistake of mispeaking/typing, just say from the beginning "Oh, I didn't mean to say it as a fact, it's just my opinion/guess", instead of wasting a few posts before saying that.
I have answered your questions but you keep trying to change them to be within the context of hypothetical(and frankly impossible) situations. Its not my problem if you ignore what I'm saying but at least disagree with them and not act like they dont exist.
And yes quite frankly your interogating me , your singling me out of everyone who is saying its cgi or gameplay making it seem what im saying is any different from them.
It is extremely common in the gaming industry for trailers not talked about alot being cgi , its nothing new and I dont know why your even argueing with this.
Of course there is no concrete evidence that but the way I see it , its fact>logic>being illogical , there is no fact that its not cgi but it is definitely logical to say its cgi with the points I put above and definitely illogical to say otherwise. So until it is proven other wise , that teaser was cgi with touched up replay videos.
I asked you to show me the parts which were CGI (unless the whole thing was CGI), and to present objective facts and evidence that it's CGI. I remember somebody arguing that it wasn't CGI due to clipping going on in one of the screenshots. That's an example of someone with some ammount of knowledge/experise and using that to argue it.
On the other hand your entire argument was "It is extremely common... for trailers not talked about alot being cgi". That's not concrete proof that backs up your statement: "Well of course it is , the GT trailer was cgi". You should have then said "It's probable that it's CGI".
Unless you can calculate that the probability of it not being CGI is extremely slim to the point of being pretty much 0 (which I don't know how), you have so far absolutely no objective, VISIBLE, proof that the entire trailer was CGI, as you originally stated (I like how you change your position without simply admitting you made a mistake, didn't clarify enough beforehand).
Look, I'm not arguing that the trailer was CGI, or that it was all in game footage. I have NO EXPERTISE and knowledge to even analyze the video to give proof and evidence that it was CGI or not. Because you originally stated, as a fact, that the entire trailer was CGI, I expected you to easily have the expertise and ability to say "You can clearly see in this frame, or at X:XX that it's CGI". Rather, you just skipped the question, and said "Well it's weird if they didn't hype this trailer up" or "Most trailers that aren't hyped up are CGI".
So just man up, and said you made a mistake. That instead of presenting your statement as a fact, you meant to state it as an educated guess. That you meant to say "Probably".
Nice contradiction there , you promote someones post by saying this poster has some amount of knowledge on the subject even though you stress that you have no knowledge on the subject. Is it enough to post something that may seem knowledgable , but actually is false , to be considered knowledgable by you , even though you have no knowledge to recognize the knowledge?
And when did I ever even say I have any technical knowledge on the subject , I am just speaking on common business practices and quite honestly common sense. Ever hear the expression , if it looks like a rat , smells like a rat , its a rat.......well this saying can be used for this situation. If everything sony has done(read above reasons) made it look like a cgi trailer ,then it is a cgi trailer.
Do you realize how pathetic the bolded part sounded? Is this honestly what this is all about?......sad , sad , sad.
This is kinda ironic isnt it , I remember you trying to stop me and cgi from continuing a pointless argument but now im going to follow your advice then and "be the better man , and not ruin it for the rest of [us] by having this argument on the thread."
I am willing to continue this on pm if you answer me as to why you have such an agenda against me? You single me out from everyone , even when I have valid reasons as to why it is cgi and they dont. And please dont say you dont because no one would go so far as to get a "probably" out of someone even though there are bigger fish to fry on the forums.
How was that bold statement a contradiction? I never promoted ssj's statements, disagreed with your's, nor push my own opinions about the GT5 trailer. In fact, like said in one of my previous posts, which you either rudely ignored or refused to read, I believed that the GT5 trailer was CGI, only that I didn't have the expertise, and therefore proof, to say that as a fact.
I was ready to believe what you said, if you provided me with the direct evidence that's necessary for a factual statement. Evidence that can be used to verify the fact/statement. You gave me INCONCLUSIVE proof. If you were arguing that Sony and the gaming industry have a trend, and therefore the GT trailer was probably CGI, I wouldn't have come to you for some expertise. Instead you were arguing that the GT5 trailer was definetly CGI, so I can only assume that if you were to make such a factual statement, you'll have hard evidence.
Even if something looks like a rat, and smells like a rat, you might just be looking at an over grown mice that smells like shit. I'll rather you point out the distinctive traits of the animal to show me that it is indeed a rat or not. That's how science works. You provide facts, you don't just say "It's common sense". Common sense was that the world was flat. Common sense was that the sun and moon were disks.
I wanted you to give me VISIBLE evidence, if you were going to stand by your original, factual statement.
However, I soon realized that you didn't mean to give a factual statement, and you were just trying to give an educated guess, and made a mistake. To confirm that, I was asking you to now clarify your original statement. You've yet to do that after 2-3 posts.
As for the "better man" statement I made (and you're calling me the one with an personal agenda? You've remembered a post another person made weeks ago, that's what I call obsessive), from what I recall I said that you and CGI were DERAILING the thread. While I guess you can say that technically we're going off topic by talking about GT5 on a GTPSP thread, it's close and relevant enough, much more relevant to thread than what you and CGI were talking about on the GoW thread. If you've answered my questions, not only would this dialogue have ended quicker, it would have resulted in the sharing of knowledge and interesting facts.
As for the bolded statement (if you haven't noticed, I'm going line by line), how is that pathetic? Making an mistake is perfectly fine, and I'm not gloating over it. It's your stubborness to either clarify your original post that's pathetic. Did you mean to say that the GT5 was a trailer as a fact, or as an educated guess? That's all I'm asking. And yes, this is what it's all about as of now, as I do not even know what you actually meant. I've been waiting you to provide me direct evidence, and now I'm waiting for you to clarify your original statement
As I've said before, we're talking about something relevant in this thread. If anything, you're the one being unproductive by making a question an "argument", and not answering the original question. Please show me, where in the trailer that indicated it was CGI. If you didn't mean to say that the trailer was definetly CGI, please say so yourself, as I don't want to put words in your mouth.
As for your "agenda" and "singling" out, I guess in retrospect I should have asked ssj for his reason's as well, but I never had any malicious intent toward you. I was interested in you, because I believed, after your confident and fact professing statement you could have taught me something about CGI. Instead it turned out you didn't have the experitise NOR evidence, to back your statement back, and you simply won't clarify your original post.
I stated before, I think that parts of the movie is CGI as well. Did you hear that? I AGREE with you (for the most part, as what you've said in the OP, you said the whole trailer was CGI), but I didn't have any expertise and proof to state it as a fact, only as an assumption. I WANTED to hear your expertise and proof (which you should have, if you're making such an statement of fact), and you've yet to provide me one, only indirectly saying (or me over infering) that you've made an educated guess.
So will you please go back to your original statement, and fix it, if you didn't mean what you originally meant (a factual statement).
If you still stand by your statement, professing that as a fact the GT5 trailer is CGI, provide concrete evidence that can be used to conclusively verify your statement and enlighten us all (and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. The whole intention of my original question was for all of us to be enlightened by you).
Wooo, your losing me again Akvod. Where did I ever say that it was fully cgi? And even if I did ,I corrected myself in an earlier post (if you have 50 posts per page , it should be in the second page) and said it was cgi mixed in with touched up replays NOT FULLY CGI!!! (Please tell me that you AT LEAST read that).
And I remembered that argument (that happened this week I might add) because of the stupidity of it and how that turned out and how eerielly similar it is to the pointlessness of this discussion.
If you can discredit my earlier points, instead of asking the same question you keep asking that ive already answered (although from another view point) , then I will gladly change my OP just for you. Until then I will keep it the same.
But still I will show you the pointlessness of this discussion , lets say hypothtically that I change my OP to make it sound like an opinion , what happens after that?
N64 is the ONLY console of the fifth generation!!!
holy long reply, cough ok, PSP renders in lower res on a real small screen, if it looked bad, it'd be a crime, and no, it doesn't look as good as forza3, that's just.... wtf people?
As the thread title states.. Ive found something spectacular for both racing fans and PSP fans.. what is the best looking handheld game to have ever released, or be shown to date..
GRAN TURISMO PSP
dare I say it? Graphics almost as high quality as FORZA MOTORSPORT 3 on a NEXT GEN console.
