What is so hard about a technical analysis of pure onscreen image for people to understand?
GT5:P supports a higher resolution, etc. as detailed in the analysis with more on-screen cars - of course a pure technical analysis will put it ahead.
They're not saying which has better handling, which feels better, which appeals more to an individual view of colour or art direction.
Personally I found the handling in Forza 3 a little more fun, while GT5:P felt a little more 'real' but at the expense of being involving (for my personal tastes) - but that has nothing to do with the rendered image.
In this kind of analysis the engine supporting better on-screen visuals will be given the nod every time, whether the game is better, worse, or even plain terrible.
This isn't knocking either game as a game, its just a clinical analysis of the engine purely for rendering capability.
Turn 10 themselves said recently they put physics, damage, etc. ahead of visuals, while it's well known PD really go after the on-screen image and handling model vs physics and damage - so really this is hardly a surprising result, even given the relative age of GT5:P.
GT5:P remains one of the most visually impressive titles on PS3, right next to Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2, while Turn 10 had to get their engine from Forza 2 levels (which was average visually IMHO) to the very nice level of Froza 3, so the age of GT5:P is irrelevant if you consider where the Forza engine was when it released.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
