You really assume you know alot.
It's not just knowledge sake, what did I say after? "a business standpoint in relation to time considerations.
It' not a useless number, as one learns if an investment profits on the cost, and if it was worth the cost. One of the many things you can take out of it. Your logic baffles me.
Regardless if companies lie, you can get a rough estimate. And I don't get what you're trying to get at with the benefit of them lying(unless you're implying that just because someone spent a huge budget that something is guaranteed to come out good.)
Obviously knowing doesn't change the quality of the game, but gives insight of the quality of the game according/in relation to cost. Again your logic baffles me.
For me, it was never knowing to tout expenses for the game, but quality with what how much of an investment put in. The thing I would see people complain about is that they assumed GT5's budget of 60 million warranted them a perfect game, so I'm actually on the opposite of what you're assuming. So say Turn10 spent more than that with their budget, and FM4 doesn't reach it's own high expectations, then that could be very telling of the quality vs invesment with that game.
So your assumptions on the the perspective I'm trying to take in are wrong.
No reason for your PS3? No Blu-Ray for you? you only play 1 game? That's interesting, but I could careless. Having both systems is always a plus(They've both been out a while) I save money for what I want.
I think Sony realizes what GT does for them, that should be obvious with Sony having PD create a PSP version of GT to generate sales there for PSP, and adding 3D with their release date to promote sales of 3D televisions. Then add in what everyone had assumed a big budget of 60 million then surely Sony has taken notice.
But again if Forzas budget has been bigger and lacks the quality of such an investment. Then that will provide my interesting perspective I'm looking for.
And you've gone and assumed I said that's why
you wanted the numbers.
Though you hint at the end that some of my list does apply to you. You want to compare the games based on their respective budgets.
You're already operating under the assumption that T10 has a bigger budget, and the game won't be as good, very telling final sentence you have there.
BTW I highlighted the first sentence now too, so you can see where you told me I think I know a lot, and then the final sentence where you say you want to do exactly what I said people would do with it.
Budget vs game quality is irrelevant to 99.9% of gamers as they play the game, it's much more just a fuel for people to defend the lower budget games.
Well, I have to say, I'm still not getting this. Could you explain the logic?
It's easy to see how Forza could be construed as a copy of the GT formula, but I fail to see how GT was a copy of NFS, given at the time NFS was an arcade racer all about evading cops and dodging through traffic, with only a handful of high-end cars available and no upgrade options or personal garage, no licences, no in-game currency etc.
If you mean it copied NFS because they're both "racing games", then I think we both need to agree that you're being more than a little facaetious, and all true credit for the genre actually goes to via Space Race.
For starters, it would be nice if you could bother yourself to read the posts already made, rather than ask me to post it all again.
The moral of the story is many people like to call FM a "copy" of GT5.
I said FM is only a "copy" in the sense that it's a similar game of the same genre. Microsoft said, "Let's make a sim on the level of GT but better." I'm not even talking about whether or not they did, just what they set out to do, which is make a game similar in nature, but better.
As most already know, GT left many huge gaps of lacking content and poor implementation on the past 5-7 years, for all 3 GT games, GT4, GT5P, and GT5.
I can't blame or dub any game that comes along looking to make a game like everything GT could be a copy, because they're clearly not trying to copy, they're trying to make it better.
Tenacious D made a list to determine things that make it a copy, a list which was all either realistic, or was done
before GT1.
So according to his list, GT would have had to "copy" other games for some of the very "reasons" he claims FM is a copy of GT.
Furthermore, T-D claims Microsoft's history of making one-offs proves that FM4 is a copy, which is speculation at best.
CSLACR,
my god man. Do you sit with a straight face when you deny forza is GT copy? Their own Game director said he was in the industry because of GT and Kaz.
every single one on this site knows Forza is GT copy. The difference here some accept the cold hard truth and some don't
I'll repeat the other comment.
Creation is not without influence.
Kaz had influence too, everyone always does, that doesn't make everything a copy.
Maybe we need to bring back the Rolling Stones & Beatles analogy again? That the Stones second single was a cover of the Beatles, yet the bands were actually nothing alike?
