crunchUK's forum posts

#1 Edited by crunchUK (5963 posts) -

I actually read your post and seriously struggled to care about any of it. I mean if you ever try and establish what's going on in MW2 it makes no sense whatsoever... 3 people manage to steal a nuclear submarine and launch a nuclear missile from it without a single Russian general or PM having a say? It's stupid, but when you play it it's not stupid it's OMG WTF HE LAUNCHED A NUKE WHATS GONNA HAPPEN NOW? And Reach generally holds up a lot better.   They are attacking the covenant instead of defending in that opening battle because at that moment in time there is just a relatively small force they are trying to crush to prevent them having a safe place for many more to land. Also, you seem to have forgotten that in the Civilian evacuations bit (It's only 1 mission?) it is only you, and you just fell out of the sky without any objective or mission. So no, Noble Team is not the "national guard" or whatever. Anyway I can't be bothered to carry on but you need to pay more attention.

#2 Posted by crunchUK (5963 posts) -
@Gizmo said:
" @crunchUK said:
" Funnily enough, it has been Forza 3 and not Halo Reach that has been occupying my disk tray for most of the time, until recently when 2 things happened... first I bought the maps, and they were unbelievably superior to the ones on disk, perhaps even suspiciously so. The second thing that happened was that I played Black Ops, which made me realize how much I liked Halo. It's SO GOOD when you know what's actually going on as opposed to everyone running around mindlessly until they find someone unawares in a miscellaneous room to shoot  or playing sniper hide and seek. Reach is just so much more sophisticated - You can logically PLAN all your actions and use TEAMWORK. Some actual thought went into the design of the maps, but more importantly you always know what the outcome of what you do will be.   The difference can be summed up quite easily - In Reach, instead of deciding to perch on a nice vantage point only to have a bunch of people spawn behind you and stab you in the back (or not), you decide to perch on a nice vantage vantage point and then fight to control it. Slot machines and poker. "
And in Bad Company 2, you can blow up the vantage point.   Enough said, really. "
you couldn't really though. Maybe the wall in front of it.
#3 Posted by crunchUK (5963 posts) -

Funnily enough, it has been Forza 3 and not Halo Reach that has been occupying my disk tray for most of the time, until recently when 2 things happened... first I bought the maps, and they were unbelievably superior to the ones on disk, perhaps even suspiciously so. The second thing that happened was that I played Black Ops, which made me realize how much I liked Halo. It's SO GOOD when you know what's actually going on as opposed to everyone running around mindlessly until they find someone unawares in a miscellaneous room to shoot  or playing sniper hide and seek. Reach is just so much more sophisticated - You can logically PLAN all your actions and use TEAMWORK. Some actual thought went into the design of the maps, but more importantly you always know what the outcome of what you do will be.  
 
The difference can be summed up quite easily - In Reach, instead of deciding to perch on a nice vantage point only to have a bunch of people spawn behind you and stab you in the back (or not), you decide to perch on a nice vantage vantage point and then fight to control it. Slot machines and poker.

#4 Posted by crunchUK (5963 posts) -
@KaosAngel said:
" Let me know when Forza can come close to what GT does in sales with the hardcore driving crowd"
Hilariously delusional. If ever there was proof you're simply not capable of partaking in this discussion (apart from your complete and utter lack of experience with or knowledge of forza 3)...  
 
bye!
#5 Edited by crunchUK (5963 posts) -
@KaosAngel said:

"  They also have yet to include Super GT "

^^^ either does not know what super GT is, or hasn't ever played forza 3 (it's even in the opening menu clip thing). That would explain why you're so eager to contribute meaningless statistics though, which again matters to nobody but you, trying to justify all those hundreds of american dollars you invested. Are you sure you didn't take a wrong turn at system wars or something? Because again, it's just not relevant to quality or appeal, try branding and marketing instead. How is the sims, by the way? 
 
Also, @Aus_azn: Racing online is just in a completely different universe to career mode. I mean, the gulf is just unimaginably vast.
#6 Edited by crunchUK (5963 posts) -
@KaosAngel said:

" @crunchUK: Doesn't matter what you think though, at the end it's the masses and GT5 outsold the top selling Forza game in it's first 12 days.  The public has spoken, they prefer GT5 over the Forza game, and PS3 has the lowest install base too. "

Having fun playing the sims there? Yeah, that's what I thought... It's an inane point to bring up in a discussion of each game's merits, unless of course you're trying to win some idiotic fanboy argument only you can see or feel the need to have.
#7 Posted by crunchUK (5963 posts) -
@Karmann:  What are you talking about? You can't even adjust brake bias or pressure in GT5. And I know pixel perfect tail-lights are of the utmost concern, but I'd say an averagely modelled one is better than a flat texture (all too often [and rather noticeably] the case with standard cars). The car models certainly are more detailed, but then there's only really 200 of them compared with forza 3s current tally of about 500. As a car fan I would say the tradeoff is worth it. 
 
Anyway, to elaborate on my first post which is in actual response to the OP... if you care about proper racing as well as cars, GT5 is average at best. For a game they spent more than 5 years on though, it's truly atrocious - It's quite easy to imagine the bitter disappointment the people on my friends list who bought a ps3 just for GT5 felt. 
 
@Aus_azn: @AlexW00d: If you have no interest in the racing aspect that's fair enough but you're missing out horribly. I'd upload some replays if it didn't take aeons. I have spent about 600 hours and 18,000 miles in forza 3, the vast majority of which has been online. But anyway, I was just trying to enlighten the OP as to why some of us think less than highly of GT5.
#8 Edited by crunchUK (5963 posts) -
@AlexW00d said:

" @NekuSakuraba: Baby you through everything. GT5 is for serious Sim Racers, it really doesn't give two shits for anyone else. Whereas Forza tries to cater for everyone, which is why you can make it arcade as fuck and be able to win everything by playing like you would in NFS. As a game, that is probably a good decision, but a lot of people don't take this into account when they compare them. "

Why don't you tell all the people on fm.net who bought a ps3 solely to play GT5 that they went straight back to forza 3 because "you can make it arcade as fuck and be able to win everything by playing like you would in NFS"? You know, the people who spend £400 or more on fanatecs? 
 
What forza 3 does that GT5 doesn't is give a thought to the racing. It has this thing called a PI system, where the supposed overall performance of a car is given a numerical value and it means that when you enter the A class RWD hopper your Lotus 2-11 is matching some guy's Ferrari F50 round Suzuka allowing you to have a super intense battle and pit your own lovingly tuned creations and favourite cars against each other on a level playing field.  
 
It also has this thing called a Cycled Production hopper, where you get matched up more or less on the basis of ability and get put into the exact same unmodified cars on selected tracks supposed to work well. Ever tried racing CCXs at Road Atlanta against someone of the exact same (good) skill? Trying to outbrake someone at 190mph in a near-zero downforce car on a bumpy, hilly straight is something special. And the best part is that it takes about a minute to get set up in such a race. 
 
Fancy pitting some identically matched slick tyred, stripped out, fully roll-caged American Muscle cars against each other online? You should, it makes for superbly fun and epic sounding racing. Both games are perfectly capable of staging such a thing, the difference is that with forza 3, it will take you a few seconds finding a game in the B class RWD muscle hopper. If you want to do it in GT5, you need to find some people who are on the same skill level as you, tell them the exact restrictions (you can't just set a PI value and let everyone work out the best builds for themselves) , set a time, open the lobby, hope that they all turn up, and hope that the cars will be competitive with each other (because of course there is no way of actually knowing). I don't know how long that will take, but something tells me one race just isn't worth the insane hassle. 
 
Anyway, my point is that PD just don't know how to make a good online game, and single player is if anything secondary in forza 3, such is the greatness of multiplayer.
#9 Posted by crunchUK (5963 posts) -
@Buck_Sexington said:
" @crunchUK said:

" @Buck_Sexington said:

" @hicks91 said:

" @FizzleNizzleBear: i am not for one second suggesting they do the whole thing behind socialism is your work for the state, not the state works for you and it dictates how you should live your life theres been a lot of that going on, not just in Britain but across the EU and some people are annoyed at it "
You really have no clue do you? This isn't socialism, it's not even close. If you wanted to class it as anything it would be social conservatism, you know the same people who didn't want rock and roll, violent films, gay marriage, swearing on TV, porn in the newsagents or sex on TV. They people who support these things and fought against the liberalisation of our country were for the most part Conservatives.  "
State control is inherently socialist. I take it you weren't paying much attention during the past 13 years when the socialist Labour government banned smoking, tobacco advertising, handguns, fox hunting, doing anything at all to your home unless the councils lets you, letting you car pool to take kids to school or football games without a CRB check, made the UK the country with the most CCTV on the planet, tried to introduce a nationwide system of ID cards, doubled alcohol duty "to curb the binge drinking problem", added the congestion charge, created the M4 bus lane, created a four THOUSAND page manual for headteachers, banned apple bobbing and replaced face with chopsticks because it "spread germs"... should I go on? It's got nothing to do with liberalism/conservatism, it's authoritarianism/libertarianism.   This internet ban is impossible to implement anyway, it's just an idea that got thrown into the media ballpark to gauge the public reaction.  "
You don't seem to know what the word Socialist or it's use in political terms means, all the things you have mentioned are an increase in state control, nothing exactly new, which can easily occur with a  socialist or conservative government. Also Labour haven't been a socialist party since 1996. "
more state money = more state control, it's very simple. Labour don't like to call themselves socialist but it's blindingly obvious when you look at everything tney've done - How isn't it socialist to go "these people are poor. Obviously not because they're thick, or because they spent the time they could have spent making something of their lives in the pub, so let's give these poor victims of circumstance MORE TAX MONEY!!"? 
 
I suspect you're just unaware of the facts.
#10 Posted by crunchUK (5963 posts) -
@Buck_Sexington said:
" @hicks91 said:
" @FizzleNizzleBear: i am not for one second suggesting they do the whole thing behind socialism is your work for the state, not the state works for you and it dictates how you should live your life theres been a lot of that going on, not just in Britain but across the EU and some people are annoyed at it "
You really have no clue do you? This isn't socialism, it's not even close. If you wanted to class it as anything it would be social conservatism, you know the same people who didn't want rock and roll, violent films, gay marriage, swearing on TV, porn in the newsagents or sex on TV. They people who support these things and fought against the liberalisation of our country were for the most part Conservatives.  "
State control is inherently socialist. I take it you weren't paying much attention during the past 13 years when the socialist Labour government banned smoking, tobacco advertising, handguns, fox hunting, doing anything at all to your home unless the councils lets you, letting you car pool to take kids to school or football games without a CRB check, made the UK the country with the most CCTV on the planet, tried to introduce a nationwide system of ID cards, doubled alcohol duty "to curb the binge drinking problem", added the congestion charge, created the M4 bus lane, created a four THOUSAND page manual for headteachers, banned apple bobbing and replaced face with chopsticks because it "spread germs"... should I go on? It's got nothing to do with liberalism/conservatism, it's authoritarianism/libertarianism. 
  
This internet ban is impossible to implement anyway, it's just an idea that got thrown into the media ballpark to gauge the public reaction.