I was not talking about rendering Reasonable.

The entire article is.  If you're not talking about rendering then why are you commenting in this thread?  The OP, the article it points to and the whole discussion is about GT5:P rendering vs Forza 3 rendering - if you're not talking about that then you're essentially off-topic.

As I said earlier, I think Forza 3 drives a little better - for my tastes - vs GT5:P.  I find GT5:P feels more realistic, but somehow clinical.  Forza 3 just feels a little more involving to me.  I couldn't say which, from a sim perspective, is truly offering a better simulation of driving, just that the damage and physics of Forza 3 make me feel a little more 'there' than GT5:P.

Actually, I find Burnout Paradise has the best feel of all, even if it is arcadey.  I just like driving in that game.  It's crashes also feel very 'weighty' as well - in fact if I remember correctly a previous Digital Foundry article put crash phyics in Burnout ahead of Forza 3 (at least the Forza 3 demo).  If I remember they put this down to the freedom Criteron has using its own cars vs licenced models.

In the end for a driving game for me its about how it feels and whether I enjoy it.  I tend to love the look of GT games but feel the driving is a little clinical.  Forza 2 I thought showed promise but was a little weak graphically which hurt the 'car porn' angle somewhat while something like Burnout feels like a happy medium.

Your responses are starting to annoy me. I was responding to the quotes in the OP, which stated GTP5 was the classier game and both games had different technical priorities (Obviously GTP5 was their subjective choice). Forza 3 is more technical and innovative than GT5P. Polyphony focused more on graphics and modeling of the cars rather than physics and damage. That was another point I was responding to.

Forza 3 looks pretty good to me.

How is it pointless? "This blog is based on technical and gaming issues based on video captures acquired using proprietary Digital Foundry technology."

Technical standpoint of GT vs Forza 3. GT wins most of the technical chellenges. Forza wins a few. GT wins their Technical analysis.

How is it pointless?

@JaggedSac

Forza looks amazing, anyone who has played the game can attest to that. Yet, GT5:P looks simply astonishing, even by today's standarts as most people who have played the game will confirm you. These comparisons are only fair if you've played both games, since slideshow images don't really demonstrate you what a game feels and looks like. Even those Forza pics you've posted aren't as equal to what the game really looks like on your TV ;).

It's pointless because the general public don't care. They will buy GT regardless of what people think of a "demo" vs a full game. And anyone who owns either game will enjoy it. No one will think "god I wish I had the other racing sim" when they are playing either game.

:)  I know.  I just like throwing my pictures around.  I have literally spent 1/3 of my time racing, 1/3 of my time taking pictures, 1/6 of my time browsing the online storefronts, and 1/6 of my time making decals(all shitty btw, but I am getting better).  I just love the game and liked how my pictures turned out and have been throwing them around.  I saw this as another opportunity. :)

You are saying the actual game and gameplay matter. This is not examined in this blog. They do not review games on this blog. They do technical analyses. It's an interesting read as you said. That's all it is, an un biased technical standpoint.