It didn't imply anything of the sort. You merely inferred it.
No. I said:
If all you want to do is steal cars, blow things up and drive about like a lunatic, you can still do that.
You responded with:
Again, I'm not going to go digging through your entire post history. I said it was still possible to run around, steal cars and blow things up in GTA and you answered "In Vice City, yes". I didn't have to infer anything, the implication was there loud and clear.
in a discussion that doesn't exist,
Again with this... We're discussing it right now. It is posted on an open forum.
what you infer is entirely your problem.
Again, I'm not inferring anything.
I'd expect that if you were making a point, you'd want to make it with sound foundations - and if you wished to participate in a discussion you'd wish to avail yourself of all the information.
1. This isn't a courtroom. Did you go back and read all my GTA related posts to ensure that you didn't miss something crucial to the current conversation? I responded to a post made by you about how much "filler" has crept into the GTA series. I merely pointed out that it is optional, which it is. But since you obviously feel you need to experience
absolutely everything in a game in order to get your money's worth, that wasn't good enough for you. Which brings me to this.
You can't accurately judge all of a game until you've experienced all of it.
Really? How about the Qubed minigame in GTA:IV. I played it a few times so I think I experienced enough of it to accurately judge GTA:IV as a whole. I didn't get the high score though. You did and you got a nice little trophy to show for it. You got all the pigeons too. For someone who likes to complain about "filler", you sure seem to have an appetite for it.
2. So it
is a discussion now? One minute it is, one minute it isn't.
When it comes to stubbornness, I think I've finally met my equal.
If of course you just wish to wade into something that isn't a discussion
So now it isn't a discussion again. Make up your mind, will you?
for the sole purpose of disagreeing,
This isn't a game. I'm not just disagreeing because it's fun. I simply pointed out that the features that you didn't like were largely optional. Look where that got me... Into a discussion with a stubborn person who expects me to dig through his prior posts and keeps denying that this is a discussion. In truth, I wish I hadn't bothered now.
But then I thought it was of no consequence to you.
What I actually said was:
Buy the game or don't. It's of no consequence to me.
If I go and get a haircut, is it of any consequence to you? Nope. However, this here is a discussion forum. I didn't say that your opinion is of little consequence to me. If it was, I wouldn't be here, would I?
More or less.
Why is what someone else thinks about the filler relevant to what I think about it?
Because this is a discussion forum. And you were the one who brought up the issue of relevance in the first place. Nice to know that whenever someone has a different opinion to you, you dismiss it as irrelevant.
I did. I can't even find 100 respondents for me and me alone to be the 1% dissenting voice. But I'm sure the stat is accurate.
Didn't you know? Forfty percent of all statistics are made up... For the record, I was going to put a disclaimer, but I thought "He's an intelligent guy. It's not necessary".
Not really. I merely remarked that I don't like the filler and I don't like the focus more and more on filler that has been creeping into recent games. You're telling me that I'm wrong.
No. I told you that a lot of people are excited about the new features and I also told you that said features would most definitely be optional. I didn't realize that I was talking to a completionist who would rather have said features removed so he could achieve 100% completion in the game by doing nothing other stealing cars and blowing things up safe in the knowledge that he isn't missing anything.
That's not a discussion, but you're apparently seeing fit to have one.
Had you actually read what I had posted without coming to your own conclusions (see how many times in this post alone I've had to correct what you claimed I said), we could have been having a nice little discussion here... Or it could have finished long ago instead of being dragged out to epic proportions.
Really? I found that got quite old, quite quickly
I spent many an hour parachuting off buildings/out of planes etc. I'd always set myself targets. Land on this object, glide for x amount of time, open parachute at last minute etc. Then again, I've always liked setting challenges for myself in certain games.
I had a blast jumping off mount chilliad then parachuting down. Glad to see this kind of thing will be possible in GTA:V.
I'm not that bothered by trophies either, I'm afraid.
Evidently.
And in previous games, all activites have been compulsory for 100% or Platinum (or both)
"Hey cousin, wanna go bowling?".
By far the most annoying feature in GTA:IV. It would be nice if Rockstar paid homage to this by making us kill a certain character who frequently requests that we go bowling.
So, it's possible to kill it
?
Or it could just run away...
