New GT5: Prologue Details

[tha_con]

Originally Posted by blackdelsol94

Regarding the portion in bold: is that not what I JUST said in my last post? And just so you know, saying ME wasn't as visually problematic as Lair is MUCH different than saying Mass Effect isn't visually problematic.

Next, you are twisting this whole situation. My original point was that it is ridiculous for you to think you can estimate how much time I have put into a game based off of nothing more than Achievement points. You originally suggested I had only played Mass Effect for 30-60 minutes. THAT is what was so incredibly stupid. It is just as moronic as me claiming you haven't experienced enough of Forza 2 based off of your Gamerscore. Both statements are foolish. I was mocking you so that you may learn something, but apparently you have not.

The point is, you have no ground to judge either game, since you haven't seen the worst they have to offer. Right or wrong?

[blackdelsol94]

Originally Posted by tha_con

The point is, you have no ground to judge either game, since you haven't seen the worst they have to offer. Right or wrong?

GG, that is not, and never has been, the point of this whole side disquisition. No, I have not seen the worst of Mass Effect, but that has nothing to do with the original argument. The original argument was A) It is ridiculous to estimate play time from Gamerscore, and B) I have played enough ME to know I truly enjoy the game.

The above statement is you just being extremely nit-picky. Your argument has essentially evolved from post to post from the start of this thread, until you found a point that you can be right on, despite the fact that where you are now has nothing to do with the original argument. Seems like you are "reaching for straws," as you would say.

[tha_con]

Originally Posted by blackdelsol94

GG, that is not, and never has been, the point of this whole side disquisition. No, I have not seen the worst of Mass Effect, but that has nothing to do with the original argument. The original argument was A) It is ridiculous to estimate play time from Gamerscore, and B) I have played enough ME to know I truly enjoy the game.

The above statement is you just being extremely nit-picky. Your argument has essentially evolved from post to post from the start of this thread, until you found a point that you can be right on, despite the fact that where you are now has nothing to do with the original argument. Seems like you are "reaching for straws," as you would say.

So you're saying I didn't originally bring up your gamerscore in Mass Effect to show that you hadn't played enough to tell me how good / bad it was visually?

Mass Effect 2 Exclusive to 360

Really?

[NationsMostWanted]

why do u guys argue so much??

[Rev ATARI]

Originally Posted by NationsMostWanted

why do u guys argue so much??

Because there married, gay marriage FTL

[tha_con]

Originally Posted by Rev ATARI

Because there married, gay marriage FTL

It's only gay if you like it.

[blackdelsol94]

Originally Posted by tha_con

So you're saying I didn't originally bring up your gamerscore in Mass Effect to show that you hadn't played enough to tell me how good / bad it was visually?

Mass Effect 2 Exclusive to 360

Really?

You said you 'were going to get it for your PC.' I found that interesting.

You said, "Going off your gamertag, you've hardly gotten far enough in Mass Effect to really grasp how terribly unpolished it is."

I said, "The only thing unpolished is the frame rate," and "I've only put a few hours into the game, but I've got a good feel for it."

You replied with "you haven't even PLAYED Mass Effect nearly as much as I have," and "you haven't played it enough... blah blah blah."

I said "I've played the game extensively enough to see where the problems do and do not exist."

You went on to say, "It runs poorly, worse than Heavenly Sword and Lair."

I said, "I would disagree, as such is simply your typical, dogmatic assessment. Mass Effect is no where near as visually problematic as Lair."

You came back with another 'you haven't played enough,' plus some assumptions, etc.: "you haven't even played Lair or Heavenly Sword, and you barely touched Mass Effect, yet you're telling me that one is better / worse than the other."

I replied, "you act as if you can gauge how much I have played Mass Effect based on nothing more than my not-so-up-to-date Gamercard?" And, "I didn't say anything about which game was 'better/worse,' I was only referring to visuals."

You came back with, "You haven't played through maybe 30 minutes? An hour?"

And there it is: this is precisely what I was mocking you for. You CLEARLY claimed, by my Gamerscore alone, how much time I have put into ME. I found this ridiculous, and so I poked fun at you in another thread, in an effort to show you how ridiculous the statement was from the very beginning. Get over it.

[tha_con]

Bottom line: I said you hadn't played it enough to really experience how bad it can get. True. You had not played it enough to see the worst parts of the game. Later on the frame rate and texture pop in get considerably worse.

I was never wrong in my assumption, lol.

Edit: Also, all *normal* people got the first Achievement points in around 30 to an hour. I don't see why you're so hung up on that, lol.

[blackdelsol94]

Originally Posted by tha_con

Bottom line: I said you hadn't played it enough to really experience how bad it can get. True. You had not played it enough to see the worst parts of the game. Later on the frame rate and texture pop in get considerably worse.

I was never wrong in my assumption, lol.

Fair enough.

But the real bottom line: it is ridiculous to assume you can tell precisely how much time an individual has put into a game based on Gamerscore alone.

[tha_con]

Originally Posted by blackdelsol94

Fair enough.

But the real bottom line: it is ridiculous to assume you can tell precisely how much time an individual has put into a game based on Gamerscore alone.

Well, I dont' get what's so ridiculous about it. When I played it (twice now) it took me roughly 40 minutes to get through that section of the game. My roommate also did the same, and it took him about an hour. A lot of folks on NeoGAF did it between 30 to 50 minutes. I don't see why it's so 'outrageous' of me to assume how long you had played based on my own personal experience, and the experience of others.

[blackdelsol94]

Originally Posted by tha_con

Well, I dont' get what's so ridiculous about it. When I played it (twice now) it took me roughly 40 minutes to get through that section of the game. My roommate also did the same, and it took him about an hour. A lot of folks on NeoGAF did it between 30 to 50 minutes. I don't see why it's so 'outrageous' of me to assume how long you had played based on my own personal experience, and the experience of others.

Oh, so you not only timed yourself, but also sat next to others with a stop watch to get an accurate assessment on how long it takes to play the beginning portion of the game? And that's without even getting into the fact that you have no idea specifically where I stopped, or what I did before then.

In the end it is an assumption with a minimal amount of logic. My intention was to create an analogy of sorts with Forza 2, but apparently you are still having trouble connecting the dots.

I give up, hopefully someday it clicks for you.

[tha_con]

Personally I'm still blown away that this comment:

"You haven't played through maybe 30 minutes? An hour?"

Through you into such a frenzy. I mean, it does have question marks. I just don't get why you're so butt hurt because I made an assumption as to how long you've played the game. Wouldn't it be easier to just say "you're right, I haven't seen the worst of the game, I've played through the first mission and then some though, longer than an hour".

Very easy. Instead, you reply with snyde remakrs and sarcasm, trying to be witty so you don't look foolish. +1.

Edit: Never mind, I can't give you rep right now. Maybe in the future I'll hit you up.