CGI-Quality said:
Mirson said:
darthdevidem01 said:
SleepWaking said:
Why??? Expectations have been raised since then, it might be a bad review I don't know I haven't played it yet, but this doesn't prove that.
|
I'll add the nail to this long due coffin called jeux.com's GT5 review:
JEUXVIDEO.COM reviews:
*GT5 prologue
Graphics 19/20
Gameplay 16/20
Durability 12/20
Sound 15/20
Overall 15/20
*GT5
Graphics 15/20
Gameplay 14/20
Durability 17/20
Sound 15/20
Overall 14/20
IT MAKES NO SENSE THAT GT5 looses 4 points in graphics and 2 points in gameplay from prologue!!!
|
Different times, different standards. That's all there is to it.
Also, this thread rocks.
|
You're missing the point. It's voted lower on visuals than a game it's clearly above. Gameplay I can't speak on, but I'm willing to bet that's improved as well. Different times and different standards were also put on Halo: Reach vs Halo 3, but most would be crazy to consider Halo 3's visuals a step above Halo: Reach's.
|
Yeah but that game was released two years ago; there wasn't much competiton back then. Today, we have Need for Speed, Forza 3, etc. The standards have been raised. Also, they probably take fps into consideration in the graphics category. I'm not sure about GT5, but Forza 3 ran smooth @ 60fps.
