Photo GT5 prologue VS Forza 3 Demo

[Devedander]

Then why were all his twitches after key, controversial sentences?

Could be any number of reasons... could be because he was excited about those points, could be because he was subonciously emphasising them... could be he was nerovus (especially considering they were key controversial points), could be he is just twitchy... could be becaue he was lying. The subconcious is a very complex and diverse thing.

Could be anything, doesn't mean it is any one of them and again, you whole "twitch = lie" scenario so far is from one video where someone says that's what they think it means. I am sure there are lots of people who twitch in lots of circumstances and not all of them are lying.

These twitches were not random but only occurred after a controversial statement. It's obvious to me these reflexes were his body screaming for him to stop lying.

Could be. Could also be any of the things I said above, could be somethign else entirely. Again, not conclusive.

If someone is tapping their foot they're most likely nervous. If someone puts their hands in their pockets they're most likely nervous.

I put my hands in my pockets all the time for no real reason. Sometimes it's just the most comfortable place to put my hands. I actually never put my hands in my pockets when I am nervous, it makes me very self concious of the fact I am doing it. So again, you are saying something that MIGHT be true as if it is. It's not conclusive. I am not saying it's not possible, it's just not conclusive.

Dan Greenawalt doesn't twitch his arm and head for the kicks of it. He does it when he feels something on the inside, and that something comes out in the form of a reflex, or twitch.

Again, you are stating an assumption as fact. It is entirely possible he is twitching because he is lyig, but it is also possible he is twitching for any number of other reasons.

In this case he knows he is deceiving the audience after each false claim so he nervously twitches after each remark.

Again, assumption stated as fact.

Everything does not have to be 100% conclusive to be considered true.

No but it does if you are going to end the post with the word "conclusive".

If that was the case every single murdurer would get off free because they would never confess. Dan Greenawalt would never confess to misleading the public so you say he should be given a pass.

Poor analogy. If there is enough evidence that something is true, then you can draw a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

However you are very short on actual evidence, you have just strung together a bunch of assumptions based off a very unspecific comment from that video.

And I'm waiting for you to prove it isn't true. You claim I don't have enough evidence when I've just now clearly given you enough evidence to prove Dan Greenawalt is a liar and a cheat. You, being a Forza 3 fan, will not accept this, of course.

I am not saying he didn't lie. He very well may have.

What I am saying is that your logic is flawed and the clame you make cannot be made rationally justified by what you have put forth.

You are the one making the claim that his twitch means he is a liar, you are the one who has to prove something.

I am not claiming he isn't lying, I am just saying your argument that he IS lying is weak and flawed.

Everyone knows Gran Turismo 5 Prologue and of course Gran Turismo 5 looks better then Forza 3.

Well there is a reason why the word "Best" is great to use in promoting something... it's entirely subjective. My neighbor thinks his purple house is the best looking house on the block.. I think he is way off the mark but he isn't lying when he says it.

I am not saying I think Forza is better looking than GT5, but best is subjective. I think it's kind of slimy to do so but it's the norm in marketing and promotion to use subjective terms because of just that... they sound strong but they really mean almost nothing and can't be proven wrong.

It's quite obvious to me that Dan Greenawalt knows Forza 3 can't compete with GT5 in some areas like graphics, so he publicly boasts that Forza 3 has better graphics to give hope to the ignorant masses who would believe him. Dirty marketing at it's worst.

Ok, it's obvious to you. That doens't necessarily make it true.

I actually agree that, especially in screen shot world, Forza doens't look like it's going to be significant competition for GT5. That's what I think.

But then again I actually like those crazy rock mountains and I really like how they are nicely modeled in 3D and the distant mountain views over the cliffs edge. I like them far more than the simple photomapped moutains of eiger... remember how something looks has a lot of facets.

I hated the framerate of Forza 1 and the choppy reflections, but I loved some of the lighting effects. In the end I enjoyed how Forza 1 looked more than Gt4 for those reasons. So it's not black and white at all.

To me it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It's quite obvious. To you it's not because you refuse to see the truth. You refuse to accept the facts. You refuse to listen.

It's proven to you. That's great. To some people the bible proves God exists. I am not in that group, but it works for them.

It absolutely doesn't mean it's conclusive though.

I've lost credibility in the eyes of those who see the world through Forza 3 sunglasses. Doesn't matter to me.

No... you have lost credability in the eyes of those who understand, appreciate and demand solid logic behind an argument.

 

[aspect8]

I don't think it would be even nearly as bad as it is right now if Turn 10 just kept their mouth shut. I know I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for that.

We totally need a separate thread for "Turn 10 Attitude vs Polyphony Attitude". Then all the people who got their feelings hurt by American marketing practices can go cry a river over there, and this thread might deliver what it's title promises.

 

[Tornado]

And I'm waiting for you to prove it isn't true.

Not the way a debate works. Try again.

Then why were all his twitches after key, controversial sentences?

Because you are making things up to support your contrived argument.

You claim I don't have enough evidence when I've just now clearly given you enough evidence to prove Dan Greenawalt is a liar and a cheat.

You've fed us a line of bull about being an expert at determining when people are lying based on physical tells. Your expertise alone requires some kind of validation for any of the statements you have made regarding the interview to be relevant. So I'm waiting.

Everything does not have to be 100% conclusive to be considered true.

No, but it has to have at least some factual basis. "He's lying because I'm an expert and I know he is" is not factual basis.

I say he shouldn't be given a pass but should be held accountable.

Yeah, let's burn him for having an opinion.

He twitched after almost every controversial statement.

Lets put two and two together.

To me it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It's quite obvious. To you it's not because you refuse to see the truth. You refuse to accept the facts. You refuse to listen.

As fantastic as it is to know that you are willing to jump to conclusions about someone based on a set of standards that you made up yourself that you cannot prove have any grounds in reality, that does not make it a fact.

Does Dan Greenawalt have to come out and say he was lying in order for you to be convinced? I think so. Because it's obvious to me now that all the evidence in the world wouldn't convince you unless he came straight out and said it himself.

Perhaps you could show this evidence, then. Not made up anecdotes, but actual factual proof that:

• You are enough of an expert in this field that we are able to take your opinion as fact over the matter.
• That the field itself is not a complete crock that has no legal meaning.
• That every person does the same thing when lying.

Until you can do that, I suggest you stop claiming that you can prove the man is lying.

I've lost credibility in the eyes of those who see the world through Forza 3 sunglasses. Doesn't matter to me.

You've lost credibility in the eyes of people who actually want to have a factual debate about a game on a message board. That you actually think anyone who disagrees with you for the slightest reason is a Forza fanboy is truly pathetic on your part.

And by the way, Turn 10 was the one who stole the driving line feature. I was on GT since 4 that I can confirm. Maybe it was in GT even before that. It was only in the lower level license tests though.

Racing games have had the feature long before the Gran Turismo series did, so do you really want to be opening that can of worms?

 

[Dravonic]

We totally need a separate thread for "Turn 10 Attitude vs Polyphony Attitude". Then all the people who got their feelings hurt by American marketing practices can go cry a river over there, and this thread might deliver what it's title promises.

You nailed it. My problem is with this "Money first, morals latter" rule of the american market nowadays. It's mind-blowing how many people actually accept this and see nothing wrong with it.

But sure, we can return to the topic. Just don't think there's much else for this thread to deliver in the original matter. GT5P graphics are better and this was settled in the first post already.

Games had it long before the Gran Turismo series did, so do you really want to be opening that can of worms?

I was only commenting on how the "they copied the line from us" was BS and you just helped me prove my point. But sure you're right, GT wasn't the first one with it.

 

[Devedander]

You nailed it. My problem is with this "Money first, morals latter" rule of the american market nowadays. It's mind-blowing how many people actually accept this and see nothing wrong with it.

As one who has lived with and accepted that view most of my life, often questioning and discrediting the older generation who saw through it, I have to say I absolutely agree... it ticks me off no end and is just slimy overall. Sadly, while it's rampant here in the US, I don't think it's in anyway limited to this region.

/offtopic rant

 

[Tenacious D]

Fans being infatuated over a huge racing game? What a unique and unprecedented situation...

Well, and seeing or feeling things that aren't there?

I guess I shouldn't beat up on Forza, or even look like it. Forza is Forza, and we all pretty much know what we're getting. But I will have to say that if Turn 10 had delivered just one more car on track at once, and the team not acted like teenage fanboys, the environment surrounding the game would be a lot less polluted. I think it's way too late for that now though, so let the butt-hurting continue.

 

[serversurfer]

Clever post, though. Let us know when high school's over for you. Maybe you'll know how to quote then, too.

AvanGard properly quoted your original statement, thereby providing you with a handy link to said statement. Instead of simply clicking the link, you asked them to show you where you said it. When the response was "In post #538," instead of providing you with another link to said post, you then belittle them for not using the forums correctly. In short, you criticized someone else for your failure.

You're my new hero.

 

[Tornado]

I was only commenting on how the "they copied the line from us" was BS and you just helped me prove my point. But sure you're right, GT wasn't the first one with it.

Ah, my mistake.

 

[El Drifto]

Greenawalt is a class A liar.
We all know Forza is not the definitive racing game of this generation, so why even bother?

 

[Seismica]

It wasn't an honest opinion.

I am very good at reading body language, and when Dan Greenawalt said Forza 3 is the best looking racing game on any console he did not beleive himself, as was evident in his body language. After he made the comment his arm jerked up, which is the reaction someone has when they are lying

Now you are a shrink? The outright absurdity of the above statement is something that cannot easily be described. Are you seriously, seriously suggesting that you have the ability to comprehensively analyze an off-the-cuff body movement made after a statement made during an interview and claim, as fact, that the man was lying about his own opinion?

Greenawalt is not the only one whos lieing, what you said was complete BS Earth. You are giving GT fanboys a bad name, i'm getting a little annoyed lol

Anyway, to quote Jeremy Clarkson on opinions:

By doing some research and giving it some thought, i've turned a fairly held conviction into one side of an intercranial debate.

The inescapable conclusion to all this is that if you have all the facts to hand, you will see there are two sides to every argument and that both sides are right. So you can only have an opinion if you do not have all the facts to hand.

That pretty much sums up half the people in this thread. (The other half trying to put across the same point i just did).

I am also aware of the irony that is the quote was actually Jeremy Clarkson's opinion, but just ignore that...

 

[Earth]

Could be any number of reasons... could be because he was excited about those points, could be because he was subonciously emphasising them... could be he was nerovus (especially considering they were key controversial points), could be he is just twitchy... could be becaue he was lying. The subconcious is a very complex and diverse thing.

Being a promoter of Forza 3 and Dan Greenawalt you of course choose to see only the bright side. I have not seen anything in any of his videos to suggest he makes twitchy movements when he is nervous. These movements he made were very circumstantial. Not spontaneous by any means. They could be tracked and studied.

Again I will admit that I am not an expert in the area of studying body movements. However I am not a total amateur at it. From your previous posts it appears you have never tried to study body movements yet you want to question me as though you are the master of them? I don't get that at all. You don't know my level of expertise so why quickly dismiss what I am saying as though I am making it up? I have watched several documentaries on body language. They reviewed the Nixon interviews. Presidential debates. Serial killers. Mark Thurman. I may not be a certified expert but again I am no slouch.

Could be anything, doesn't mean it is any one of them and again, you whole "twitch = lie" scenario so far is from one video where someone says that's what they think it means. I am sure there are lots of people who twitch in lots of circumstances and not all of them are lying.

Once again you do alot of assuming. We can all assume Dan Greenawalt's twitches meant he was not lying. We can all assume Dan Greenawalt's twitches meant he was lying. I prefer to look at the facts and evidence. I prefer to believe something beyond a reasonable doubt. Dan Greenawalt's behavior was very easy to detect and decipher. He wore his emotions on his shoulder. But of course you will go ahead and say he does no such thing, or at least I can't prove it. Which is all besides the point. I have proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt that Dan Greenawalt's actions in his E3 speech were so obvious they almost became expected at certain points in his speech. Some people can try and hide their emotions and not make any body language at all, but Dan Greenawalt made no such attempt. As I said he wore his emotions on his sleeve and I picked him apart, as I'm sure any professional body language reader could. The only defense you have in his name is "How are you sure?". What do you want me to do? Ask Dan Greenawalt himself if he was lying? It seems that that is the only thing that will satisfy you and it's very unreasonable.

Could be. Could also be any of the things I said above, could be somethign else entirely. Again, not conclusive.

Could be? What is conclusive by your standards? Must he take a lie detector test? His actions were very easy to spot and decipher. He wore his emotions on his sleeve.

Again we're back to the laboratory paradox. Can I test what I said in a laboratory, in a controlled enviorment, with a flask and other measuring equipment? No. But you sound as if I should have to in order for what I say to be even considered as being credible. This not fair just to me, but it's not fair to those who read what we type because you unfairly brush off my findings as if they have no ground or basis which is not true. I suggest you do the community a favor and stop brushing off findings that do not cater to your tastes or liking. Not everything is rosy and full of sunshine.

I put my hands in my pockets all the time for no real reason. Sometimes it's just the most comfortable place to put my hands. I actually never put my hands in my pockets when I am nervous, it makes me very self concious of the fact I am doing it. So again, you are saying something that MIGHT be true as if it is. It's not conclusive. I am not saying it's not possible, it's just not conclusive.

And not every clover has 4 leaves. Should the extreme exception somewhat discount or discredit the rule? Of course not. But you say it should. Your pretty much out of arguments so your saying that my careful study of Dan Greenawalt's movements should be dusted off to the side because it can't be proven to 100% without a doubt.

Again, you are stating an assumption as fact. It is entirely possible he is twitching because he is lyig, but it is also possible he is twitching for any number of other reasons.

And I have proven through my careful diagnosis of the situation that he is indeed lying. You haven't accepted this because it does not conform to your ideals or liking.

Again, assumption stated as fact.

Again, not an assumption but a careful diagnosis.

No but it does if you are going to end the post with the word "conclusive".

The Merrian-Webster definition of conclusive:

Main Entry: con·clu·sive
Pronunciation: \-ˈklü-siv, -ziv\
Function: adjective
Date: 1536

1 : of, relating to, or being a conclusion
2 : putting an end to debate or question especially by reason of irrefutability

— con·clu·sive·ly adverb

— con·clu·sive·ness noun
synonyms conclusive, decisive, determinative, definitive mean bringing to an end. conclusive applies to reasoning or logical proof that puts an end to debate or questioning <conclusive evidence>. decisive may apply to something that ends a controversy, a contest, or any uncertainty <a decisive battle>. determinative adds an implication of giving a fixed character or direction <the determinative factor in the court's decision>. definitive applies to what is put forth as final and permanent <the definitive biography>.

I've already proven my findings are irrefutable by showing he exhibted the behavior according to a fixed schedule, namely when he gave a questionable statement.

Poor analogy. If there is enough evidence that something is true, then you can draw a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

However you are very short on actual evidence, you have just strung together a bunch of assumptions based off a very unspecific comment from that video.

Again, not assumptions but a very carefully diagnosed and reviewed timeline of actions that Mr. Dan Greenawalt exhibited that proved what I said irrefutably.

I am not saying he didn't lie. He very well may have.

What I am saying is that your logic is flawed and the clame you make cannot be made rationally justified by what you have put forth.

You are the one making the claim that his twitch means he is a liar, you are the one who has to prove something.

I am not claiming he isn't lying, I am just saying your argument that he IS lying is weak and flawed.

Weak and flawed to you because the findings/results do not please you. You can't simply brush things off that do not please you.

Well there is a reason why the word "Best" is great to use in promoting something... it's entirely subjective. My neighbor thinks his purple house is the best looking house on the block.. I think he is way off the mark but he isn't lying when he says it.

I am not saying I think Forza is better looking than GT5, but best is subjective. I think it's kind of slimy to do so but it's the norm in marketing and promotion to use subjective terms because of just that... they sound strong but they really mean almost nothing and can't be proven wrong.

It's called false advertising. And yes, it's a lie. It's what gave GT5 fanboys so much fuel to go ahead and burn Forza 3 to pieces. If he never said such things GT fanboys would have just dusted Forza 3 off like they dusted Forza 2 off. They know both aren't serious competition but the only reason they care now is because of what he said.

Ok, it's obvious to you. That doens't necessarily make it true.

I actually agree that, especially in screen shot world, Forza doens't look like it's going to be significant competition for GT5. That's what I think.

But then again I actually like those crazy rock mountains and I really like how they are nicely modeled in 3D and the distant mountain views over the cliffs edge. I like them far more than the simple photomapped moutains of eiger... remember how something looks has a lot of facets.

I hated the framerate of Forza 1 and the choppy reflections, but I loved some of the lighting effects. In the end I enjoyed how Forza 1 looked more than Gt4 for those reasons. So it's not black and white at all.

What makes it bad is that he hasn't seen GT5. How can he claim he has the best of everything when GT5 is yet to be released? How can he claim to have the best graphics, physics, modes, action etc of this generation when GT5 is a few months from release? He's just talking nonsense knowing that people like you will stick up for him.

It's proven to you. That's great. To some people the bible proves God exists. I am not in that group, but it works for them.

It absolutely doesn't mean it's conclusive though.

And what I said is not proven to you and it never will be because you don't like what I said.

No... you have lost credability in the eyes of those who understand, appreciate and demand solid logic behind an argument.

That's what you would like to think. Again, your only beleiving what you want to believe and not the plain obvious undeniable irrefutable truth.

Because you are making things up to support your contrived argument.

Nothing is being made up. Everything I've said is based on fact and experience.

You've fed us a line of bull about being an expert at determining when people are lying based on physical tells. Your expertise alone requires some kind of validation for any of the statements you have made regarding the interview to be relevant. So I'm waiting.

Your like the student who refuses to listen to the teacher until the teacher shows the student their credentials. I dont need to show you my credentials. I brought up the subject because I know alot about it. Same thing with the teacher. Why do you think the teacher is in the classroom. Do you think the school hired a teacher who didn't have the credentials to teach a class? The teacher needs to show the student nothing as I need to show you nothing. The idea you even asked is a slap in my face.

No, but it has to have at least some factual basis. "He's lying because I'm an expert and I know he is" is not factual basis.

Did you miss all the videos I posted? If your not going to believe me believe the videos.

Yeah, let's burn him for having an opinion.

As fantastic as it is to know that you are willing to jump to conclusions about someone based on a set of standards that you made up yourself that you cannot prove have any grounds in reality, that does not make it a fact.

Which is exactly why he knew he could get away with talking the way he did. He knew people like you would accept it and defend him.

Perhaps you could show this evidence, then. Not made up anecdotes, but actual factual proof that:

* You are enough of an expert in this field that we are able to take your opinion as fact over the matter.
* That the field itself is not a complete crock that has no legal meaning.
* That every person does the same thing when lying.

Until you can do that, I suggest you stop claiming that you can prove the man is lying.

You either believe me or you don't. Seeing that you are hell bent to discredit anything I say you don't want to believe me so guess what? Your loss.

You've lost credibility in the eyes of people who actually want to have a factual debate about a game on a message board. That you actually think anyone who disagrees with you for the slightest reason is a Forza fanboy is truly pathetic on your part.

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[aspect8]

That is possibly the most hilarious text wall I've read on this forum yet! Gold star for you sir!

 

[TorqueHappenS08]

That wall of text is so big i can't print screen it, and turn it into a motivational poster.

 

[Devedander]

Again I will admit that I am not an expert in the area of studying body movements.

Even the experts will tell you that body movements are only indications of a likely event at best. You aren't an expert and what you aren't an expert in isn't even a science...

From your previous posts it appears you have never tried to study body movements yet you want to question me as though you are the master of them? I don't get that at all.

My previous posts must be missleading then, I will chalk it up to not being able to see my body movements while I typed

You don't know my level of expertise so why quickly dismiss what I am saying as though I am making it up?

Well now I do... you just said it up above.

And even if I don't know, the onus falls on the expert to prove their validity, it's not assumed someone is an expert until proven otherwise, works the other way aruond actually.

And BTW I have seen a lot of "experts" proven wrong, especially on non sciences like handwriting analysis and polygraph testing.

Once again you do alot of assuming.

There's some irony.

Actually I haven't done any assuming, I just stated the possible. I don't assume he was nervous, I don't assume he was subconciously emphasising points, I don't assume he was lying. I am just pointing out that what you were doing a was assuming.

We can all assume Dan Greenawalt's twitches meant he was not lying. We can all assume Dan Greenawalt's twitches meant he was lying.

Yes we definitely can.

I prefer to look at the facts and evidence.

Well unfortunately the evidence so far is all assumption. Even the assumption that the video (which I still don't even know to be credible) says a jerking arm means you are lying is just an assumption. It doesn't even say that, it says that liars may twitch which does not intone that twitchers are liars.

In logic this fallacy is roughly represented by: A therefore B does not mean B therefore A.

Example:

Statement: Fridays may be rainy.

Does not mean that if it's raining it must be Friday.

Which is essentially what you are saying when you take "liars may twitch" to mean "a twitch means he was lying".

I prefer to believe something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Probablem is reasonable is not a quantifiable word. It' up to the judgement of those listening and as I showed above, there is certainly still reasonable doubt (all the other reasons he might twitch).

But of course you will go ahead and say he does no such thing, or at least I can't prove it. Which is all besides the point.

I never said he does no such thing and I didn't even say you can't prove it. I just said the way you did try to prove it is flawed.

I have proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt that Dan Greenawalt's actions in his E3 speech were so obvious they almost became expected at certain points in his speech.

I don't think you said what you think you said.

But if I read your meaning correctly all the same, you are mistaken, you convinced YOURSELF beyond a reasonable doubt. I obviously still have plenty of reasonable doubts.

The only defense you have in his name is "How are you sure?".

I am not defending anything. I am just saying you are making a flawed argument based on (flawed) assumptions.

What do you want me to do? Ask Dan Greenawalt himself if he was lying? It seems that that is the only thing that will satisfy you and it's very unreasonable.

I don't know what you would have to do, but you sure haven't done it.

Could be? What is conclusive by your standards? Must he take a lie detector test? His actions were very easy to spot and decipher. He wore his emotions on his sleeve.

putting an end to debate or question especially by reason of irrefutability

So far nothing you have said is irrefutable. It's all just been one possibility out of many.

I suggest you do the community a favor and stop brushing off findings that do not cater to your tastes or liking. Not everything is rosy and full of sunshine.

I don't, I just don't accept "findings" that are based on flawed logic.

And not every clover has 4 leaves. Should the extreme exception somewhat discount or discredit the rule?

People who do not put their hand in their pockets whe nervous are the extreme exceptions? I would like to see some sort of study to back that claim up.

BTW I have lied plenty of times in my life and been lied to even more times. If anyone twitched regularly when lying, THEY were the extreme exception.

Of course not. But you say it should. Your pretty much out of arguments so your saying that my careful study of Dan Greenawalt's movements should be dusted off to the side because it can't be proven to 100% without a doubt.

I am not arguing any position other than that your position is flawed. I have given the only arguments I need to, which is pointing out that what you claim as fact is actually assumption.

And I have proven through my careful diagnosis of the situation that he is indeed lying. You haven't accepted this because it does not conform to your ideals or liking.

No, I haven't accepted it because it doesn't make logical sense.

Again, not an assumption but a careful diagnosis.

It was both. A careful diagnosis, and the conclusion to each step of the diganosis was made via an assumption. You keep assuming that a twitch means he was lying, when at best a twitch can be a result of lying.

Eating cheese can cause farting. Farting does not mean you ate cheese.

However your argument basically takes "Eating cheese can caust farting" and says "I keep hearing him fart after every meal so that means he ate cheese at every meal.

Flawed logic.

I've already proven my findings are irrefutable by showing he exhibted the behavior according to a fixed schedule, namely when he gave a questionable statement.

And I have refuted them. Again, you have not proven that he lied by his actions, you have only shown that if you believe that video, that his actions might be a result of lying.

Again, not assumptions but a very carefully diagnosed and reviewed timeline of actions that Mr. Dan Greenawalt exhibited that proved what I said irrefutably.

See above.

Weak and flawed to you because the findings/results do not please you. You can't simply brush things off that do not please you.

Nope, weak and flawed because they are weak and flawed. I am not fan of Dan Greenwalts attitude during that speech, but that doesn't make your argument any more sound.

If he never said such things GT fanboys would have just dusted Forza 3 off like they dusted Forza 2 off.

Now that's a lie and we all know it

What makes it bad is that he hasn't seen GT5. How can he claim he has the best of everything when GT5 is yet to be released? How can he claim to have the best graphics, physics, modes, action etc of this generation when GT5 is a few months from release? He's just talking nonsense knowing that people like you will stick up for him.

Ummm... that's precisely why he CAN say that... there is no GT5 to compare against... so of all the games of this generation, GT5 is not one... yet...

It's like me saying I am the tallest person in the world despite a woman being 8 months pregnant with a baby who will likely be very tall. Even if that baby turns out to be taller than me later on, am I lying if I say I am the tallest person in the world before that baby is born?

And what I said is not proven to you and it never will be because you don't like what I said.

You keep assuming that and you keep being wrong.

 

[iLex]

I think it is time for GT5 to be released. I have been following some of the threads on this forum and clearly people are going absolutely mad from all the waiting. Some have already started to paint the walls with their digital feces while others have turned into zombies, repeating the same words over and over.
When GT finally gets released in march I am afraid it will be already too late for some people here, for some it might be the final push into utter madness and for a few it will be the cure. Let's stick together and hope for the best.

 

[aspect8]

Sorry Deve, but Earth's text wall was still longer. His was over 4 Word pages long, yours managed a paltry 3.5.

 

[Seismica]

I think it is time for GT5 to be released. I have been following some of the threads on this forum and clearly people are going absolutely mad from all the waiting. Some have already started to paint the walls with their digital feces while others have turned into zombies, repeating the same words over and over.
When GT finally gets released in march I am afraid it will be already too late for some people here, for some it might be the final push into utter madness and for a few it will be the cure. Let's stick together and hope for the best.

Brains





Neeeeeed GT5 NAOUW!!!!

Sorry Deve, but Earth's text wall was still longer. His was over 4 Word pages long, yours managed a paltry 3.5.

 

[phil-t]

Why is this thread still going..

We've now got the point of an amateur physcologist show-down or something equally as weird..

Can we just accept the only point of credibility is the marketing terms used that state FM3 has the best graphics of any racer this gen, which is higly debatable, and in some respects, it falls short of GT5p which is an old game...

Would that not save all the enless droning and tiresome discussion?

Or am I yet again thinking it's another thread allowed to go on as long as the vitriol is directed at Forza, a rival to the forum's 'god'..

The reviews are out for Forza, Metacritic has it scored very highly, it's an AAA title that at release is the best game in it's Genre, despite several obvious 'flaws'..

When GT5 is released, hopefully it'll take the crown (it's not all about the graphics, but it almost deserves to on those alone), and we can then call that the best racer of this genre, until the next 'king' is crowned that is..

Or is this site all about homage to a game so good that it is beyond reproach in the eyes of it's followers.. To me it's a video game that has many shortcomings, as well as many praiseworthy attributes, but it's just a game at the end of the day.

 

[sejtur]

You know what, I keep seeing people say Greenawalt has somehow insulted (or flamed) PD but I have never seen it.

The closest thing to "insulting" the GT series I have seen is him saying GT copied the adaptive racing line but turned it blue.

At no point has he said something along the lines of "our game has no competition" in fact he has said a few times that they have gotten ideas from other games. (including making a game of the same genre of the GT series)

It's all in this video. 👎
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNDoYUsRrjI

 

[yeti]

Forza 3 brings what no other racing games can. The best graphics and physics. The largest rooster of the hottest cars

How's the physics on the chicken?

C.

 

[Reneetje]

How's the physics on the chicken?

C.

 

[Earth]

Even the experts will tell you that body movements are only indications of a likely event at best. You aren't an expert and what you aren't an expert in isn't even a science...

In all my years of communications with human beings I have developed a bit of a knack for figuring people out without them even having to say a word.

This is something I practice on a regular basis, while watching interviews on TV, or while talking with someone in person. I try and read what their body language is saying to me. I try and read what their eyes are saying. I try and read into the words they say. Are they tense. Are they anxious. Are they relaxed. Are they confused. I pride myself on being able to do this. While it may not be a super exact science that can be tested and duplicated in a laboratory, I've gotten it down to a point where I am rarely wrong. I have vast amounts of experience to draw on. I did not learn these things in textbooks. My 'gift' is a result of many many years of practice. It's not a guessing game as you and others may envision. It is much more precise then you may ever know. FBI profilers, for example. How do they know so much about criminals they are chasing if they never met them? All they have to go off of is perhaps a peice of cloth. A name. A smell. And they can tell you the entire life story of a criminal off of a small piece of evidence. I bet you would brush that off too. They can't 'prove' it. Doesn't matter as the police see them as a very reliable source. Same thing with body language. It's down to a very precise level now. Those with many years of experience, like me, can do it and not only do it be quite accurate with it. It's nothing to scoff at or question.

My previous posts must be missleading then, I will chalk it up to not being able to see my body movements while I typed

Very funny.

My point is how can you question me so much when your not sure what you are questioning me about?

You don't send someone who's never seen or played a down of football in their life to go question Bill Belichick. You'd get run out of the room. Belichick would have none of it. Same situation here. You want to question me and my tactics of reading body language but it's quite clear you don't have the knowledge of it I do. But you want to doubt me and ridicule me. Not very cool man. Would you send John McEnroe to interview and quiz Michael Schumacher? Would you send Paris Hilton to interview and quiz Bill Clinton about political matters. Of course not. But you want to quiz, interview and belittle me despite the fact this subject is in my territory and not yours. You're just a newcomer yet you want to throw the boss out in the wet. Not cool.

Well now I do... you just said it up above.

No, you don't.

I've only said my experience with body language is limited, limited compared to an expert, limited compared to someone who is in the 50s, 60s and has been around people all their lives. That is what I mean by limited. Did you think that? No. Again you question me and downplay anything I have to say without knowing the facts first.

And even if I don't know, the onus falls on the expert to prove their validity, it's not assumed someone is an expert until proven otherwise, works the other way aruond actually.

How exactly do you want me to prove my validity?

There's plenty of people who come onto this forum and claim to be racecar drivers, scientists, engineers, pilots, etc etc. If they start talking like they know what they're talking about it's obvious they're not lying. It would be proper to hold some form of doubt as you are not 100% sure about them, but you certainly wouldn't question and critique them like you are me. You're only treating me this way because what I'm saying irritates you.

And BTW I have seen a lot of "experts" proven wrong, especially on non sciences like handwriting analysis and polygraph testing.

Again you want to claim the extreme exception is the rule.

Experts who specialize in things like handwriting analysis, polygraphs, forensics, etc etc are hardly ever wrong.

There's some irony.

Actually I haven't done any assuming, I just stated the possible. I don't assume he was nervous, I don't assume he was subconciously emphasising points, I don't assume he was lying. I am just pointing out that what you were doing a was assuming.

Making a statement or observation based on facts and experience is not assuming.

Yes we definitely can.

And that's about where your expertise in this area dries up. You can't go further because you have no experience or training in the art of body language reading. But because you can't go any further you don't want me to go any further as well.

This is wrong in so many ways.

Well unfortunately the evidence so far is all assumption. Even the assumption that the video (which I still don't even know to be credible) says a jerking arm means you are lying is just an assumption. It doesn't even say that, it says that liars may twitch which does not intone that twitchers are liars.

In logic this fallacy is roughly represented by: A therefore B does not mean B therefore A.

Example:

Statement: Fridays may be rainy.

Does not mean that if it's raining it must be Friday.

Which is essentially what you are saying when you take "liars may twitch" to mean "a twitch means he was lying".

Probablem is reasonable is not a quantifiable word. It' up to the judgement of those listening and as I showed above, there is certainly still reasonable doubt (all the other reasons he might twitch).

Dan Greenawalt goes on stage. He is very stiff and forcibly makes his left arm swing as he walks along.

How To Tell If Someone Is Trying To Trick Or Deceive You

"...they may have muscle tension, they may be rigid..."

Dan Greenawalt's face after stating "It was this love of cars that drove my team to create the definitive racing game of this generation."

Not many clues here. There is an awkward pause and he appears to have problems facing the camera after the statement. If the picture was high definition I could stare into his soul through his eyes and find the truth.

"Forza 3 delivers thrills that our competition can't."

Notice after he finishes the sentence he twitches his head. This is without a doubt a window into his soul. He either doesn't believe what he just said or his conscience is bothering him for making such a brash statement.

"Forza 3 is the best looking racing game on any console."

This is the one. Notice at the very end of the video his left arm twiches when he makes this ludicrous claim. I rest my case.

I never said he does no such thing and I didn't even say you can't prove it. I just said the way you did try to prove it is flawed.

See above

I don't think you said what you think you said.

But if I read your meaning correctly all the same, you are mistaken, you convinced YOURSELF beyond a reasonable doubt. I obviously still have plenty of reasonable doubts.

See above images. Still not convineced?

I am not defending anything. I am just saying you are making a flawed argument based on (flawed) assumptions.

Yes you are. Don't start a ruckus then back down.

I don't know what you would have to do, but you sure haven't done it.

See above images.

putting an end to debate or question especially by reason of irrefutability

So far nothing you have said is irrefutable. It's all just been one possibility out of many.

See above images.

I don't, I just don't accept "findings" that are based on flawed logic.

And not every clover has 4 leaves. Should the extreme exception somewhat discount or discredit the rule?

People who do not put their hand in their pockets whe nervous are the extreme exceptions? I would like to see some sort of study to back that claim up.

You want studies. You want quizes. You think the entire world should be polled to find a definitive answer. Sorry, your never going to get those things.

BTW I have lied plenty of times in my life and been lied to even more times. If anyone twitched regularly when lying, THEY were the extreme exception.

Lying in person is different then lying in front of hundreds on a national stage. You react different.

I am not arguing any position other than that your position is flawed. I have given the only arguments I need to, which is pointing out that what you claim as fact is actually assumption.

My position is flawed in YOUR eyes. You stubbornly refuse to accept my findings. Hopefully the above images make things easier for you to see and understand.

No, I haven't accepted it because it doesn't make logical sense.

It doesnt make logical sense.. because you say it doesn't?

It was both. A careful diagnosis, and the conclusion to each step of the diganosis was made via an assumption. You keep assuming that a twitch means he was lying, when at best a twitch can be a result of lying.

Eating cheese can cause farting. Farting does not mean you ate cheese.

However your argument basically takes "Eating cheese can caust farting" and says "I keep hearing him fart after every meal so that means he ate cheese at every meal.

Flawed logic.

Nope. What if you checked the refridgerator of the guy who was farting and found can after can of beans. Then you checked his stove top and freshly cooked beans? Then you found plates that had just been eaten off? I'm have more facts to back up my claim then your willing to give me credit for.

And I have refuted them. Again, you have not proven that he lied by his actions, you have only shown that if you believe that video, that his actions might be a result of lying.

Not 'might', but an extremely high, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nope, weak and flawed because they are weak and flawed. I am not fan of Dan Greenwalts attitude during that speech, but that doesn't make your argument any more sound.

Nice attempt to try and make you sound like someone who is neutral in the whole Forza vs GT thing when you obviously aren't.

Now that's a lie and we all know it

Not a lie. Nobody cared about FM3, but with all the big claims Dan Greenawalt made even GT fans want to see if the game delivers on its promises. His propaganda worked.

Ummm... that's precisely why he CAN say that... there is no GT5 to compare against... so of all the games of this generation, GT5 is not one... yet...

It's like me saying I am the tallest person in the world despite a woman being 8 months pregnant with a baby who will likely be very tall. Even if that baby turns out to be taller than me later on, am I lying if I say I am the tallest person in the world before that baby is born?

So your celebrating false and deceptive advertising as clever and wise? Thats really low.

You keep assuming that and you keep being wrong.

Hoepfully after reading my post you've changed your mind

 

[Bogie 19th]

Like, I'm still mystified over those who insist that Forza 3 is leaps and bounds, or even noticeably better than FM2.
Maybe it's just me - and half of GT Planet - but it seems that this is just an infatuation over the next big Forza.

And many are mystified over those who insist that Forza 3 isn't leaps and bounds, or noticeably better than FM2.

I guess it all depends on who you are, and your personal taste.

 

[haubi]

So what does all this have to do with "Photo Gt5P vs Forza 3 Demo" ?
Just discuss your ridiculousness via pm o_O

 

[humpus]

Don't know if this has been discussed, don't feel like reading through 48 pages

Anyway, is it just me or are the shadows completely off?

First of all, the car is in direct sunlight and the windshield is completely black.
Second, from what direction is the sunlight coming? Some shadows point to the left (see upper arrow), indicating that the light is coming from the right hand side.
The shadow on the hood of the car suggests that the light is coming from the left, the third arrow suggests it's coming from behind the car, a bit to the right.

Really, that's just ridiculous.

 

[craste]

Yes but them arrows are lying or got something to hide.

Its the way they are slightly bendy. I don't trust them, they look right shifty as if they don't really mean to point at the shadow? Do you see?

I study Arrows, ask 'earth' and 'davedander' what they think.

 

[TBR 427]

The windshield being black isn't a problem with shadows, it's a problem with the game engine itself, and can be attributed to the 360.

You may have noticed the sharp drop off of model quality and detail before racing (there's a gif floating around of a Porsche losing ALL detail). This is done to save processing power. So, the first casualty of this lack of power is...the cars!

You may notice (if you look hard enough) that the interior detail is now roughly the same as F2. To hide this, the windows lose almost all reflective and shading qualities, and as such, suddenly BAM extreme tint.

The reflections on the front of the car aren't of the window...I'm fairly sure those are mountains.

As for shadows...trace a line from the shadow of the wing mirror to the mirror itself. That's the direction that the 'sun' is. The lighting over the car's left headlight seems to confirm this, but the darkness of the front...sucks the fat one. Also, those are some ugly mountains they've made, which would explain the top arrow.

 

[Zer0]

For you maybe. When did you get the full FM3 game to see the old tracks?

And when did you get the full FM3 game to see that looks by far, much better than FM2 when you are playing it?

 

[Bogie 19th]

And when did you get the full FM3 game to see that looks by far, much better than FM2 when you are playing it?

If I told you, I would have to kill you

 

[humpus]

Yes but them arrows are lying or got something to hide.

Its the way they are slightly bendy. I don't trust them, they look right shifty as if they don't really mean to point at the shadow? Do you see?

I study Arrows, ask 'earth' and 'davedander' what they think.

No matter how funny you're trying to be, the shadows are still wrong.