except that eurogamer gave Halo3 a 10/10

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/halo-3-review

and believe me, it is far from what others european site have given to this good (but far from perfect) game ...

@slowmo

You know, people doing ridiculous claims about Forza 3 capacities and it's developers are just as bad as people doing ridiculous claims about GT5 capacities and it's developers as well. Do you have any support to your claim of PD working less than 60% time on GT5:P physics as Turn 10?

"One thing that must be stressed is that both games are using different time-of-day approximations, so the shots can't be used as direct like-for-like comparisons of the lighting model. Our comments here are derived from looking at the games as a whole."

open your eyes (and your mind) and read man !!!

lol at the damage control

WAIT, the comparaison is base on FM3 demo ?????

or kowenicki is just lying to himself ?

leo-j, I have the explanation : it is what happen to you when you have eaten too much crows ...

6 months of Turn10 "we are the best" and selnor's "ZOMG look at those screens" cleaned ...

Lol, it's funny because I just said the same thing to him yesterday

Bad wording on my part, I meant the engine uses around 60% less time working on physics.  360Hz vs 120Hz, thats a lot of extra work going on under the hood.  I don't care about either developers PR bullshit, I just enjoy the games.

@libellule - Back to your cave, I see you're adding nothing to the debate as usual.

Thats cool bro, but the GT series is still the main console brand of Europe. America barely cares about it anymore and Japan doesn't pay much attention to it. It doesn't matter that they gave Halo 3 10/10. It is the definitive exclusive console shooter.

So you still think that Digital Foundry (not Eurogamer) choose GT5:P over Forza 3 because of the site they post their content on is Eurogamer?

@Slowbro

I see your point now then. Yes it's true that Forza's engine is pushing physics in a way that no other console game has done before, that's pretty much a given now.
Yet it's not the quantity of Hz that the engine produces that makes up for the final outcome of the physiscs. Games like GTR-2 and Grand Prix Legends only produced about 200 Hz of physics, yet they are amongst the best examples of simulation physics and damage in a game.
It's all a matter of how the developers use the resources they have available, and in that case, Turn 10 did a good job and gave us one of the best racing sims ever.

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.