How did Forza 5 outscore Gran Turismo 6 again? *UPDATED*

Wow lemming holding tied to gamespot for dear life,this site reviews suck they have for quite some time period,TLOU and B2S reviews were a total fu** by MC Shea,Forza over score is epic is actually worse than Halo ODST score,this site loss all its credibility when the Jeff thing happen period,they fire a reviewer for calling a crappy game what it was CRAP because they didn't wanted to lose the sponsor period is written in history period.

http://www.gamerankings.com/xboxone/716325-forza-motorsport-5/index.html

79%

http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/997653-forza-motorsport-4/articles.html

90%

Forza 4 has 90% using the same metrics Forza 5 has 79% deal with it lemming the game is not as good period as it was before and now is even lower than GT6 which has 81% deal with it.

COntent definitely doesn't indicate quality but that's not an excuse to charge 60$ for a 30$ (at most) game. If they planned to recreate future tracks from scratch and actually go out and start from complete scratch without upgrading older models or anything, and to create new and fresh and true 8th gen level tracks and cars, then yes that makes sense, but if they limit the game just so they'd have more time to upgrade older cars and tracks and upscale them to 8th gen level and then make people pay for them, that's bullshit and robbery.

I meant that fora 7th gen game GT6 looks as impressive as it does for a 7th gen, as Forza looks for an 8th gen. Could've worded this better perhaps, but either way I only even mentioned graphics because they gave forza points for graphics but not Gt6.

I'm sorry all I see is you making excuses for it. They could've have pulled a drive club and delayed the game.

I did read the reviews and I read a few others from other sites and even linked to them in the OP, and I also watched videos discussing the topic. I'm not bashing Forza, but I'm calling bullshit and shenanigans on GS for their stupid review or should I say ad. There's just no way. GT6 does too many new things, has pretty much all Forza has and wayyy more, has arguably comparable and arguably better driving and physics. Forza doesn't deserve more than an 8 and GT6 doesn't deserve less than that. Simple. The reviews are bullshit and FZ's appears like a paid advertisment.

Wow lemming holding tied to gamespot for dear life,this site reviews suck they have for quite some time period,TLOU and B2S reviews were a total fu** by MC Shea,Forza over score is epic is actually worse than Halo ODST score,this site loss all its credibility when the Jeff thing happen period,they fire a reviewer for calling a crappy game what it was CRAP because they didn't wanted to lose the sponsor period is written in history period.

http://www.gamerankings.com/xboxone/716325-forza-motorsport-5/index.html

79%

http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/997653-forza-motorsport-4/articles.html

90%

Forza 4 has 90% using the same metrics Forza 5 has 79% deal with it lemming the game is not as good period as it was before and now is even lower than GT6 which has 81% deal with it.

Wow lemming holding tied to gamespot for dear life,this site reviews suck they have for quite some time period,TLOU and B2S reviews were a total fu** by MC Shea,Forza over score is epic is actually worse than Halo ODST score,this site loss all its credibility when the Jeff thing happen period,they fire a reviewer for calling a crappy game what it was CRAP because they didn't wanted to lose the sponsor period is written in history period.

http://www.gamerankings.com/xboxone/716325-forza-motorsport-5/index.html

79%

http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/997653-forza-motorsport-4/articles.html

90%

Forza 4 has 90% using the same metrics Forza 5 has 79% deal with it lemming the game is not as good period as it was before and now is even lower than GT6 which has 81% deal with it.

Where did you get that margin of value, and what determinations did you make to reach that quota? For example, are you saying DiRT 3 should have been $15 because it only offers a selection of 50 cars? If so, then you really need to take a step back and rethink your prerogative. It's a slippery slope to follow--an unwise path to take especially in the driving game genre. Lastly, they've said in interviews that for the next generation they went back and re-scanned the tracks. Whether or not they started entirely from scratch I cannot say for I do not know, but if you're under the impression that there was some "dark motives" in that Turn 10 wanted to overtly remove content just to add to DLC at a later date sounds unwise. Again, this is the first iteration of a next-generation racer... look at the improvement from Forza Motorsport 2 to 3 to 4. Gran Turismo crew have been porting content from previous games since the PS2 era; Turn 10 hasn't done that because if they did it then it would sacrifice fidelity and quality. Again, look how worthless the standard cars (and even the "upgraded" standard cars in GT6) are. Remove them or make some of them premium. Make them worth driving.

So, it's relative to your eyes then; thus, you have no objective basis to find your observation besides some arbitrary pre-conceived metric?

Explanation, or excuse, it matters not for the end result speaks the same. Because of the high caliberness of the exclusive, delaying the game was not an option in MS' court. They worked what limited time they had, and produced a great game none-the-less.

You selectively hit on the "good and the bad" from the review, and I did not see you remove (or dissect) paragraphs from the review. I may be mistaken for the entirety of your post was a fanboy rage machine at full-throttle over a relative and subjective review, so please let me know if I'm off my rocker here. I care not about other reviews since those were added after the fact via copy-pasting. From what I've seen, Forza presents a more user-friendly and a "more fun" driving experience. Something that was readily noticeable between GT5 and Forza Motorsport 3. Content may be lacking on one end but how Forza paces the player, and how it rewards the player is done is a more meaningful way compared to Gran Turismo which requires more lengthy, and heavy investment to reap the benefits.

Again, you keep coming back to the content and base that off the score. That is unwise, especially how you jump to the "bullshit" explanation and then tinfoil hat mantra for the other review. That throws out logic and panders to fanboy mantra; unwise, indeed.

Lemme guess Stevo is in mega damage control mode?

Amirite?

So upset.

Wow lemming holding tied to gamespot for dear life,this site reviews suck they have for quite some time period,TLOU and B2S reviews were a total fu** by MC Shea,Forza over score is epic is actually worse than Halo ODST score,this site loss all its credibility when the Jeff thing happen period,they fire a reviewer for calling a crappy game what it was CRAP because they didn't wanted to lose the sponsor period is written in history period.

http://www.gamerankings.com/xboxone/716325-forza-motorsport-5/index.html

79%

http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/997653-forza-motorsport-4/articles.html

90%

Forza 4 has 90% using the same metrics Forza 5 has 79% deal with it lemming the game is not as good period as it was before and now is even lower than GT6 which has 81% deal with it.

No offense, but I often find myself wondering if I vastly overestimate the intelligence and age of most of you. Seriously.

Lemme guess Stevo is in mega damage control mode?

Amirite?

Lemme guess Stevo is in mega damage control mode?

Amirite?

You're not dismissing any of the points made. The OP contains solid points that are reflected in both reviews, you're making excuses and asking him how he drew the conclusion instead of addressing each points he makes.

This thread only proves that TC is mad at Forza 5 scoring higher and being better game than flop turismo 6 lol

#STAYMAD

totally butthurt applies to that comment he mad.

Wow, butthurt cows are still keeping this delusion thread alive. Too funny. John, do us all a favor and stick to "hype threads". That's you're bread and butter.

The butthurt is so strong in this one yet again. Forza > GT end of story.

Hmmm compared to the guys who post butthurt as a response to everything....yeah I feel pretty mature and intelligent. and that's because I am. The day any of you lemmings can directly address anything I say and logically counter with substantial context is the day I might start taking you lemmings a little more seriously .

No offense, but I often find myself wondering if I vastly overestimate the intelligence and age of most of you. Seriously.

Hey, this is an interesting topic that John brought up. I don't care about the scores, though. The games were reviewed by different people with differing views. One guy suggested that games like this be reviewed by the same person; I think that's a good idea. I do, however, take an interest in comparing and contrasting the content of the two games in regards to pros and cons.

--> I have a question for Forza players: What do you guys/gals think about the seemingly abusive microtransaction model in Forza 5?

I honestly haven't seen a single post that sheds any substance on the matter. As a reader, I was really disappointed in the posts that I've seen. No one really attempted to have a conversation about the core subject.

---

Word of advice, John. Don't mention scores. People will ignore any substantive discussion. Also, any genuine passion that you may express can be interpreted as blind rage, therefore garnering you with more ridicule that may not be deserved.

Hmmm compared to the guys who post butthurt as a response to everything....yeah I feel pretty mature and intelligent. and that's because I am. The day any of you lemmings can directly address anything I say and logically counter with substantial context is the day I might start taking you lemmings a little more seriously .

Look, at the end of the day, the point is that the review for GT6 is complete bullshit and the review for Forza 5 you guys have to defend. In reality and objectively anyone with half a brain without even playing the game (So don't give me that shit) can see that Gran Turismo (forget content, forget graphics) is a solid and well made, well executed, well assembled, and overall just solid package.

Oh and in the GT6 review, they compare it to rivals, but in the Forza one, they don't compare it to rivals at all. They completely ignore the MIcrotransaction issue, and don't even mention how the short list of tracks eventually affects the game and makes it dated. So it's okay to hold a 7th gen game to higher standards than an 8th gen game? The forza 5 review doesn't look like a review at all. Seriously go read it. It looks like a brochure. The idiot drools all over the game like a kissass worker kissing the ass of his boss to get a raise. He literally advertises the game and makes excuses for it. THERE'S NOTHING FUCKING OBJECTIVE ABOUT THE REVIEW AT ALL SO DON'T GIVE ME THAT SHIT! If you think there is you're a really big hypocrite and you're a liar. I'm not the only one saying GS has a boner for the game. I went the extra mile and did research as if spending fucking hours creating the hype thread for both games wasn't already objective of me enough, I made a table that pointed all the important dynamics and aspects of both games so don't tell me I wasn't objective enough. You're saying I already had preconceived notions, when the truth is that I only noticed that the reviews are bullshit because I already knew a shit ton about both games before they came out. I researched both games. I know more about the games than the fucking reviewer that reviewed Forza if I dare to say. He totally drolled over the game and advertised it. That's not an objective review. You can't tell me it is. He makes excuses for the game and ignores the major fact that the game is deficit of content to make for future microtransactions. Many other reviewers mentioned that the game constantly encourages and reminds you to spend more money, he completely ignores this side of the game. It's bullshit. It's no objective and you know it.

@John_Matherson said:

Yo, I don't have a dog in this fight. Racing sims are boring. That said, this is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read on this forum, and that is no small feat.

The idea that someone can judge a game objectively without even playing it is beyond asinine. It's ridiculous. How are you going to judge it objectively? Videos? By reading someone else's opinion? And you're going to be completely objective about every aspect of an incredibly complex production without having any experience with it yourself?

Are you fucking kidding me? How stupid are you?

No offense, but I often find myself wondering if I vastly overestimate the intelligence and age of most of you. Seriously.

So what if it got a seven. We love it and that's what matters. Yes, I would agree the scores are off in my opinion.

The problem is GS broke its rating system. A game is reviewed also against its previous version. GT6 is better than 5 yet scores lower ? F5 has less content then 4 yet scores the same? There is no logic.

I'm pretty sure when I quote a sentence, or perhaps a paragraph, I am providing a counter viewpoint (or elaboration on why that line of thinking is unwise), or requesting additional elaboration on the OP's line of thinking. But line of thinking is irrelevant when there's actual points being discussed to be either acknowledged with or countered. This is what I mean by it seems you're more worried about why he's saying, instead of what he's saying.

It seems like you're going out of your way to make excuses for the game. It's already clear that the OP and this thread wasn't conceived out of blind fanboy rage. A blind fanboy wouldn't spend that much time creating the Xbox One hype thread, the Forza/Ryse hype thread also.

You are seeing what you want to see; excuse or explanation it matters not here for it's semantics. What is clear to you in that respect? Do you see respected members, or "manticores" create threads with bitter and emotion filled arguments about how a particular site undermined their preferred piece of plastic? Do you also see these users call such site "biased" and how "INSERT GAME HERE review" was bought by "INSERT COMPANY HERE?" Or perhaps you see these users using bitter emotion regarding a numerical value placed upon a game? That is a trend I only see with fanboys, regardless of what systems they may own, or what threads they otherwise create. Respected memebers? Half of them are pretenders and trolls who don't contribute anything besides gifs and "butthurt" comment so no offense but if you don't see this you're not doing that good of a job as a mod. No offense. And here again you're addressing the TC instead of the topic, so again we go back to that it seems you also had preconceived judgments about the TC before reading the thread, thus your assessment of the topic probably isn't as subjective as you think, providing that the topic is objective with a subjective conclusion.

I know I'm a cow and a fanboy but I'm not going to let you write me off as a blind one. I've bashed cows a lot of times and called them out, but I've also given XBox one credit where it's due...You don't get to write me off as that. Not going to happen.

You're not addressing the OP, you're focusing on the suspicion of the motives behind the creation of the OP, and using this as an excuse to dismiss the whole theory. You're not concerned about what's being said you're concerned about who's saying it or why you think they might be saying it. Ironically, in the end, you're addressing that OP is made out of preconceived anger or motives, but your responses aren't any difference. No offense. None of the points he makes in the OP are dismissed or disproven, but instead you're working around them and making excuses for the game. Everything you say are also subjective.

See very first sentence: I'm pretty sure when I quote a sentence, or perhaps a paragraph, I am providing a counter viewpoint (or elaboration on why that line of thinking is unwise), or requesting additional elaboration on the OP's line of thinking. And yes, all that I have been saying has been "subjective," just like the reviews this thread is focused on, and just like your interpretations of those same reviews there-in. Welcome to the world of "subjectivity." Embrace it. I did and I've said it pages ago, my conclusion is subjective but most of the things mentioned in the OP are objective observations. I didn't make a table or quote other reviewers and websites becuase I don't know how to form my own opinion, I quoted them because I wanted to make an objective presentation because I know in Sys wars, opinions are irrelevant and insubstantial.

You're saying GT is inflated with useless cars and saying no one plays them. You can't counter speculations with other speculations cause you'd just be wasting everyone's time. The fact and point you'll never be able to dismiss because it's actually a fact is that the review for GT6 is sooo picky and goes out of its way to destroy the game.

Correct, I said that GT5 and GT6 is filled with cars that need not be in the game. I would much rather have PD focus on creating additional premium cars then porting or wasting their time with sub-par ports from the PS2 era. Give me cars that are fun to drive, awesome in of themselves, and worth owning in the game. Unless, you really want to race that 1972 Honda Life Step Van? No? Thought so. Maybe I do...again, you're stating subjective preferences which do nothing to what I said in the OP. The OP isn't addressing the games themselves, and if you pay attention, it's actually not even addressing the outcome of the review...I'm not mad about the scores, I'm mad about the stupid justifications given for the scores.

You're saying the OP nitpicks on negatives and positives in each review, but the review for Forza completely ignores all the negatives of the game, while the GT6 one just flats out nit picks all the details...see the irony of your comment in this?

I said selectively target and selectively focus on the "good and the bad" when you should be reading the review, and understanding the context. Looking at the overall picture is important when you see the score. How many times do I have to say I read the review. GT6 review looks like it was made a nitpicking detail oriented, hard ass, military drill sergeant, while Forza just looks like an advertisement or a blog written by a crazy drooling, not to intelligent fanboy.

There are plenty of things they didn't mention about the game. You can make excuses for why, but still there are plenty of things they didn't make about the game. Your excuse for why is irrelevant and subjective. But the statement of there are plenty of things they didn't mention in the game is a fact. A solid and vital fact,

What are you referring too here? The review, or the development of Forza Motorsport 5? It's a fact that there are plenty of things that should be in the review that aren't. Your explanation for why they aren't I consider excuses and they're irrelevant and don't disprove anything.

what's the basis or 'margin of value" for this? Well, the basis or magin of value is that it's a review and reviews are supposed to be honest and not appear like a bribed advertisement. Oh, and you're saying microtransactions have always been in Forza so that's why it wasn't mentioned, but yet you're mentioning that GT has always had recycled and reused models and tracks and stuff...Another fact that is neither subjective nor out of blind rage is that the review for GT6 compares a 7th gen game to an 8th gen game. It holds the 7th gen to 8th gen standards

You did not understand the question in which was asked--how is value determined in your eyes? What bar did you set that made you determine Forza Motorsport 5 should be sold for only $30 instead of $60? If it is content, should DiRT 3 be sold for less than $20 because it only offers a handful of tracks and only fifty cars? Establish your argument, do not make sweeping assertions without foundations.

Secondly, I did not say microtransactions have always been around--I believe they started with Forza Horizon, and follow the same mantra seen in Forza 5 (I cannot confirm this because I have not played Forza 5, but from what I've seen it looks to be the case). The content can be accessed by playing the campaign so it is not like the microtransactions are needed, but merely serve as "short cuts" if the gamer should desire such if they do not want to invest the time in the campaign/career mode.

Sorry a lot of people were saying they didn't include MTs because it's always been in forza games.

Why are you harping on the notion of a 7th generation game being compared to an 8th generation game? Games do not exist in a vacuum, and different platforms does not dictate barriers for comparison. After all, look at what game won "Game of the Year" at Gamespot... that was in direct comparison with major retail games. I think it's very fair to compare games that released, relatively, right next to eachover in terms of features, AI, and content. What seems to be the issue here in your eyes, do you really think that the standards shifted at all? What are the differences in standards between generations here anyhow?

Games don't exist in a vacuum yet GT6 is reviewed like it doesn't exist in a vacuum, while Forza is reviewed like it does...Here's your inconsistency. The standards did shift because GT6 gets compared to a game that released on a 7year old system, while Forza isn't reviewed with the same strictness and standards as GT6. FACT. Go read the reviews. You'd have to be voluntarily blind to not see the double standards. I'm asking anyone else to also go make the comparison. It's ridiculous.

Lastly, the images you posted are taken out of context.

Taken out of context is subjective view point and someone else might disagree with you.

"TAKEN FROM THE REVIEW" is a fact.

because forza looks prettier, easier to drive, has more features like rewind button, a lot of fast cars...thats why.

oh and reviewers arent that good with racing games....

@John_Matherson said: But line of thinking is irrelevant when there's actual points being discussed to be either acknowledged with or countered. This is what I mean by it seems you're more worried about why he's saying, instead of what he's saying.

First off, my response went right over your head like a 747. Secondly, why are you talking in the third person?

Respected memebers? Half of them are pretenders and trolls who don't contribute anything besides gifs and "butthurt" comment so no offense but if you don't see this you're not doing that good of a job as a mod. No offense. And here again you're addressing the TC instead of the topic, so again we go back to that it seems you also had preconceived judgments about the TC before reading the thread, thus your assessment of the topic probably isn't as subjective as you think, providing that the topic is objective with a subjective conclusion.

I am addressing the mantra that is being presented, and explaining the trend that is being followed; a la fanboy mantra. When fanboyism is the root of the discussion, reasonable discourse is not easy to find as overtly obvious by the mannerisms in this thread. Because of your emotion filled arguments with excess profanity and baseless accusations of "Gamespot being paid off", it caused other members of the community to lash out at you, and find humor in your "rage."

I know I'm a cow and a fanboy but I'm not going to let you write me off as a blind one. I've bashed cows a lot of times and called them out, but I've also given XBox one credit where it's due...You don't get to write me off as that. Not going to happen.

I did not call you blind.

I did and I've said it pages ago, my conclusion is subjective but most of the things mentioned in the OP are objective observations. I didn't make a table or quote other reviewers and websites becuase I don't know how to form my own opinion, I quoted them because I wanted to make an objective presentation because I know in Sys wars, opinions are irrelevant and insubstantial.

Your commentary throughout the original post is largely subjective; you are looking at such through a "lens." Adding two other opinions from other websites does not make it "objective" but merely adds additional "subjective" commentary to add to your premise. Do not confuse "objective" and "subjective." They are not one in the same.

Maybe I do...again, you're stating subjective preferences which do nothing to what I said in the OP. The OP isn't addressing the games themselves, and if you pay attention, it's actually not even addressing the outcome of the review...I'm not mad about the scores, I'm mad about the stupid justifications given for the scores.

I was showcasing the notion of "content does not dictate all", and there are plenty of facets to consider when looking at "content." Which is why I brought up the notion of standard cars in GT5 being inherent filler content that could easily be disregarded. The content is not quality for the cars are not worth driving, are not fun to drive, and do not hold their own in the game itself. Do not be disingenuous and tell me you would be interested in driving that vehicle. Perhaps an analogy will be suffice here: this is like saying the Xbox 8080 has more exclusives than the PS8; however, what if 19 out of 22 of those games on the Xbox 8080 scored below a six? The PS5 comes out with 8 games, 7 in which score a seven or above? Sometimes quality is inherently better than quantity. Again, it's easy to look at numbers and go... GT6 has more cars! More tracks! It deserves a higher score! That's not how things work, lad.

How many times do I have to say I read the review. GT6 review looks like it was made a nitpicking detail oriented, hard ass, military drill sergeant, while Forza just looks like an advertisement or a blog written by a crazy drooling, not to intelligent fanboy.

Elaborate on the Forza Motorsport 5 review on how it reads like an "advertisement" or "blog" -- and when you do elaborate, juxtapose such with your own interpretation of why its misleading, inaccurate, or hyperbole based on your own time invested into Forza Motorsport 5. Next, further elaborate on the GT6 review and juxtapose that as well with your own interpretation of why parts of it are misleading, inaccurate, or hyperbole based on your own time. Furthermore, it's best to provide a PSN ID and XBL GT to showcase to users here that you put your time into these games and you know what you're talking about. Quote the material, then use the next paragraph to dissect it. I'll provide an example below:

...

Mass Effect Review:

The rocky planetary design and Mako combat mechanics can really be a downer when combined together. You can spray machine gun fire or launch shells at your foes, and it works fine, provided you are on the same level as your enemies. However, the Mako's turret, for whatever reason, can't move up or down. The result is that bullets don't necessarily land where your crosshair is, so if you're on higher terrain or your target is too close, those endless clips you're unloading are useless (though you can hit enemies above you without difficulty).

"This forgets to mention one key point and misses the mark when critiquing the Mako, for example, while it appears the Mako's turret does not move up or down, it actually does in the game mechanics and one can shoot at objects at long range aiming up or down. It also fails to mention that when zooming in by using the scope on the Mako, it provides incredibly accurate fire at long and close range--and you can most definitely aim up or down, or which ever way necessary to remove the enemies. Furthermore, a simple method of fixing any issue of target being close or not is simply moving the vehicle back or forward and because of the speed of the Mako, this whole issue is overblown and needs not be mentioned."

...

Your methodology of "Really? "Expanded Top Gear partnership adds humor and context". Really? We really like the game...it's perfect and comes with a free lamborghini buh....buh...does it haz teh Top Gearzzzz?????" adds nothing to the conversation besides baseless emotion-fanboy-based remarks. Do you honestly think others are going to read your remarks and think, "oh, this is an intelligent and quality breakdown of why this review missed the mark." No, they won't. And they shouldn't either.

I'll address the rest when I have further time.

I don't get how a racing game lacking cars and tracks and time of day and weather and rally and track creation gets a 9. It has day one DLC for surprise cars that are missing from Forza 5. so forget about GT6 for a min here Forza 4 shits all over the new game besides graphics and some comments from top gear.

Turn 10 says they laser scanned the tracks for F5 but clearly obvious details like the red apex markers from Laguna Seca are missing for example. Clearly the devs ran out of time and shipped a unfinished game shit even the auction house is missing. A 9 is a almost perfect game and at 1st glance if your not a racing fan Forza 5 seems great. That is if you have no point of reference like the old Forza 4 or GT5.

There is also no mention of how the new wheels work with the game either.Makes you wonder how gamespot selects reviewers and if they actually have a second person look over the scores before they post them.

I don't get how a racing game lacking cars and tracks and time of day and weather and rally and track creation gets a 9. It has day one DLC for surprise cars that are missing from Forza 5. so forget about GT6 for a min here Forza 4 shits all over the new game besides graphics and some comments from top gear.

Turn 10 says they laser scanned the tracks for F5 but clearly obvious details like the red apex markers from Laguna Seca are missing for example. Clearly the devs ran out of time and shipped a unfinished game shit even the auction house is missing. A 9 is a almost perfect game and at 1st glance if your not a racing fan Forza 5 seems great. That is if you have no point of reference like the old Forza 4 or GT5.

There is also no mention of how the new wheels work with the game either.Makes you wonder how gamespot selects reviewers and if they actually have a second person look over the scores before they post them.

We're clearly just running circles here.

That seems like a convenient means for you to ignore my inquiries.

A las, I shall continue where I left off previously...

It's a fact that there are plenty of things that should be in the review that aren't. Your explanation for why they aren't I consider excuses and they're irrelevant and don't disprove anything.

What should have been mentioned in the review, and in which review particularly?

Sorry a lot of people were saying they didn't include MTs because it's always been in forza games.

That sentence doesn't make sense, in fact, it wasn't even addressing what I said. Micro-transactions first showed up in Forza Motorsport 4 with the ability to purchase car tokens to speed up the process, same as in Forza Horizon, and the same in Forza Motorsport 5. The entire process is optional since you can earn all the cars the long way via investing into the career mode. The microtransactions have always served as "short cuts" through the system.

Games don't exist in a vacuum yet GT6 is reviewed like it doesn't exist in a vacuum, while Forza is reviewed like it does...Here's your inconsistency. The standards did shift because GT6 gets compared to a game that released on a 7year old system, while Forza isn't reviewed with the same strictness and standards as GT6. FACT. Go read the reviews. You'd have to be voluntarily blind to not see the double standards. I'm asking anyone else to also go make the comparison. It's ridiculous.

How isn't Forza reviewed to the same "strictness and standards as GT6?" The GT6 review hit on it for being under par with respect to audio, ai, graphics, damage, multiplayer and the pacing. The reason the graphics were mentioned was the inconsistency in the game itself where some tracks were great and others looked like they came from the PS2 era (same with respect to the cars); look at the context and see where the review is critiquing the game on. It's important to always understand the context.

Taken out of context is subjective view point and someone else might disagree with you.

Your first image which discussed how GT6 feels antiquated compared to its rivals, and then showcasing the next image saying it has the best physics on consoles. They do not contradict one another. Why? Because you failed to see the context between the quotes--how a car drives is important is a racing simulator and GT6 arguably hits the bar the best here, but the other bar to hit is the many other facets that make up a game. The features, the ai, the multipayer, the audio, the graphics, the user interface, etc. One aspect of a game can be a high bar to beat, yet other aspects can fall short and feel dated; Affecting the "fun" factor. Again, it's important to always understand the context.

Lastly, with respect to the grind mention, Forza's review mentions that the career is not only exciting, but friendly or rewarding in that it's generous to players. You're not forced to be stuck with a crappy car for a long period of time and it does not require heavy investment to get the ball rolling; although the Forza review did critique such for being rather dangerously close to being repetitive because of the limited tracks.

Again, at the end of the day, this is what I'm looking for from you John:

Elaborate on the Forza Motorsport 5 review on how it reads like an "advertisement" or "blog" -- and when you do elaborate, juxtapose such with your own interpretation of why its misleading, inaccurate, or hyperbole based on your own time invested into Forza Motorsport 5. Next, further elaborate on the GT6 review and juxtapose that as well with your own interpretation of why parts of it are misleading, inaccurate, or hyperbole based on your own time. Furthermore, it's best to provide a PSN ID and XBL GT to showcase to users here that you put your time into these games and you know what you're talking about. Quote the material, then use the next paragraph to dissect it.

Look to my example for guidance.