No doubt about this, I always give them the benefit of the doubt, GT3 is in my top 10 games of all time (this goes back to 1983 when I started gaming). I'm concerned that we are getting a little PR BS right now on the 65% thing, not from PD but from Sony. I just don't like the math, and if anyone that is a better video game making mind than me, maybe they could explain the discrepancy.

ODST deserves a 3, it is a 3.4 hour game that they are charging full price for. The second disc is the same as Halo3 multiplayer.  You would have to be a FANBOY to swallow that.

Hmm...no. It has all the DLC of Halo 3, AND it's got firefight mode, which is quite addictive. Plus, the single player campaign is worth it, even if it's short. Plus, this thread has NOTHING to do with Halo 3: ODST, so take your hating elsewhere. You've been reported.

am i missing something here??....

visual...ok i understand paper cut out looking trees and etc...

controls....both are SIMULATION racing games...which means they are trying to be as close to realism as possible...so WTF??..how does forza win in that case??.....he does specifically says it's more realistic on GT...?????????????????????????????...i do not understand...

gameplay....there he seems to mention it's more forgiving on forza which means it's more arcade like style....again...WTF??...maybe he should go back to playing his mario cart...

is it just me?? am i missing out on what he's saying??...or is this guy retarded??

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHH i just got it....he was doing a VS review on ARCADE racer...not a SIMULATION racer....nvm...i got it now..it was me who didn't understand what he was doing...

Oh Sapient. I am a very good Halo player. I have finished every Halo on Legendary. I nfact Halo made me so good at FPS games I finished COD4 on Veteran in 7 hours. LOL

Where am I going with this?

I am just under half way through ODST on Legendary first playthrough and I have cracked the 4 hour mark. 3.4 hour game. lol. Halo ODST is the best FPS since Halo 3 of which I think ODST is better.

Someone gives their opinion, and then a ridiculous amount of people try to discredit him and twist his words because they don't want it to be true. That is as low as u go.

What's even more interesting is a few of the Forza fans over at the Need for Speed Shift forum is complaining how unrealistic and bad Shift physics is when actually it's Forza physics that's less realistic. ( Shift does have a few problems need to be fitted). So it seems even Need for Speed Shift leans more toward Sim than Forza even though it's an arcade racer.

The Forza demo is mind-blowing!

Forza physics are light years ahead of any other console racer, period. Make all your excuses you like but GT or any other console racer isn't in the same race when it comes to realistic handling. It' no surprise GT5 has gone from finished to only 65% in the space of a month as PD have realised they're in serious danger of being upstaged and need even more time.

Anyone here seriously doubting the graphics of FM3 being on par with GT5 is deluding themselves. Sure with another 6 months development time GT5 could perhaps look better but this article rated purely the demo's available hence it's not beyhond the realms of possibility his opinion maybe right from many other peoples perspective too.

You do know you can't say that until GT5 is finished and released, right?

I will admit it is a little surprising it's only 65% done, but Yamauchi also said he can keep working on it as long as he has more ideas to add to it, and that it's just a matter of timing. Competition breeds competition, pretty much. As long as GT5 is fully polished, I don't see any harm in a delay (I'm getting both games, by the way).