Well apparently selective reading is cool if the selective part is negative. I mean, look at the OP. Literally every single part of the article that is negative is bolded, yet no one cared. I do the same only bolding positive, he has a problem. Shocking.

One minor gripe I have with the back and forths here tho. I know this is just about graphics and all, but some people are citing the fact that this game is 1080p as something more important than the fact that this game has 14 tracks and less than 1/3rd the cars of the last numbered outing of the Franchise, it's just that last week 720p was perfect has long as there was a lot of content. I don't get it? did everyone just upgrade from the 720p tvs which apparently every gamer had last week?

In case anyone is going to call out iamdeath for not replying to stuff here btw not only is he banned but it's a permaban so you'll never get the replies some people want from him (for better or worse)

Well he posted the whole article...

And the answer was selecting a part that wasn't even flatering (talking about it being the best by being the sole one available).

I agree, 14 tracks, no RING is just insane for a race sim. Tracks are crucial in any sim.

You lie... premium cars are crucial (even if they don 't drive real) and clouds is important... who need tracks??? just race on the sand or in the cloudies.

considering how amazing they got each of it's 13 miles perfectly recreated into Forza 4 was really amazing tearing down that long straight looking out at the german countryside it's a shame to see it left in the pits for this outing. Will probably show up with a dlc pack but it's going to be a pretty big download I'd imagine.

Once you start to notice the 2d trees in GT5 it can really jerk you out of the otherwise near flawless simulation, just as you go around a corner slowly and the trees continue to face you like the eyes on a creepy painting.

I think the biggest point is how MS and Turn 10 lied to customers about how powerful the One was and what the final Forza 5 game would look, making playable demos on high end PCs.  And even at high speeds you will be able to see the pixelated trees and definitely 2D trees in the background.  Probably not so much the spectators, but it still speaks volumes that this game has 2D ones, like on the PS1 and some PS2 games, while GT6 has 3D spectators.

I posted the whole article as well. The difference is in what you selectively bold.

You don't think a comment about a game taking racing sims to the next generation is flattering? Some of you act as if they shat all over the game but then said even though it doesn't deserve it, it's the standard for sim racers. All they say is despite lack of polish. Which to me says the gameplay is good enough for next gen. And that's really all that matters. I am yet to read negative things about the actual handling model and physics of the game, it's all small graphical sacrifices.

Give me a next gen game that actually does something to deserve being next gen, over something like Killzone 6 which does nothing really next gen, but sure looks purty. Some of the people in this thread seem to prefer the other way around, that's cool I guess. Toodles.

Why come into a graphics thread and just bitch about people discussing graphics?  Just cause the game on the system you prefer doesn't look very next gen?  It's just ridiculous.  If you don't like the the fact that the graphics aren't what they were promised to be, and have elements from games 2 gens ago in it, don't enter the thread.

I still don't understand why you believe it was a compliment from DF when they stated it sets the precedent because it's the only one available.  That's more like a back-handed compliment.  It's not like they stated, "It sets the bar very high for following sim racers."  Nope, just because it's the only one.