have you even played it yet?.....

No. I read that in all reviews on the web (even the bad ones).

I love the honesty of the GamePro reviewer, he admitted being 'Nitpicky' for docking half a star/5.

This is not new about IGN, it is basically an Xbox land. They gave move 8.5 and Kinect 7.5. Then a later video of Move vs Kinect they picked Kinect as a better product because it is "innovative" forgetting that PS Eye existed 6 years a go and almost every game you play now on Kinect can be played on PS Eye.

I stopped going to IGN since I saw the vide about Move vs Kinect.

If I were to guess, it would be because that GT was known for hyper-realism in the things that it was simulating. I think that the problem with GT5 would be that they tried adding too many more things to simulate. And rather than getting these new additions up to snuf with all the other things, they focused more on the depth, while still promising the hyper-reality. The thing is, they were unable to get everything up to the same level.

So they added damage. Great! But... some are claiming that it's not as noticable as it should be. Was it incomplete, the implementation? Or is this how it was supposed to be? Nonetheless, it is left open as a potential issue. Maybe damage should have been pushed into GT6, where they could have fine-tuned it more. The car issue seems to be another one. 1000 cars? Also great! But only 200 with detailing? This leaves the other 800 cars feeling incomplete, and will gravitate many players toward only a fifth of the selection. Instead, I think targetting ~600 cars, with full detailing, would have been a better course of action. Sure, it's not the "OMG 1000!", but they would all meet the promised spec of hyper-reality, instead of a 2-tiered car structure that exists now.

Guys sometimes there is just a divide between players and reviewers.  If the people like the game, it's irrelevant. 

It's like GTA4, but in reverse.  People didn't love it, but reviewers acted like it was the best thing ever.  It was assuredly NOT the greatest thing ever. 

It was the overhype by Sony that made expectations impossibly high.  Remember, even the bad (meaning 8 lol) reviews say it is the best simulation ever. 

is it consensusly the best GT?
Like do they say GT4 was better in this aspect. Or is it just GT5 is has a lot of things they should have improved but didn't and a few cool treats. or something.
do the reviews say anything about this?

If so, Then at the very least it succeeded to a point if its the best.
It does make sense to dock it some if it's presentation/music is lacking. Even if the racing aspect as excels, if it's not fun or as fun as it should be at the other parts.That's part of the game too.

I mean, for me tomb raider's underworlds combat is obvoiusly lacking, but it's platforming/puzzles make me give it a 9. But I can see how it could get less. If they rationalize it correctly, the scores seem correct either way for GT5. (though any score, that's rationale is correct even if it's a 10 or a 5)

Yeah... most of reviews (even the bad ones) say GT5 is the best GT ever created.

It's a 88.88% in GameRankings

Cheat Code Central	11/24/10	Review	4.8 out of 5
Game Informer	11/24/10	Review	9 out of 10
PlayStation LifeStyle	11/24/10	Review	10 out of 10
Eurogamer	11/24/10	Review	9 out of 10
IGN	11/24/10	Review	8.5 out of 10
Kikizo	11/24/10	Review	8 out of 10
Computer & Video Games UK	11/24/10	Review	8 out of 10
GamePro	11/24/10	Review	4.5 out of 5

So far it has a 87 on Metacritic. Ler's see if it can get to a 90 !!!