Nice comparison above, Zer0 👍 Which brings me on to...
GT4 - 10%. Completely unrealistic. Physics is almost unexisting (even PGR has better), sound suck, car characteristics are not real (for example there is no way Clio V6 could beat NSX, and this happens all the time in GT4 with AI drivers all the time).
GT4 wasn't
that unrealistic, and certainly not as far as that behind GT5 either. The very fact that using real racing techniques and a good knowledge of car physics can help you drive quicker is alone worth more than 10% when 0% is completely unrealistic.
What are you using for your Clio V6 vs. NSX comparison? There are so many variables in that comparison that it's not even funny. The battle you describe refers to the AI - the problem is
obviously much more AI related than physics related. Have you
seen how they try and pass each other? On the right (or wrong) circuit a Civic could beat an NSX, let alone a Clio V6 with not too much less power. Even in real life I could easily see a well driven Clio beating an average driver in an NSX. Like I mentioned - way too many variables to use that as an example of poor realism.
And PGR
certainly doesn't feel more realistic.
It seems like people beat down GT4 just because they can't
mad tyte drift yo. No, the cars don't oversteer enough but it's quite possible to slide the cars if you have enough power.
GT5 Prologue - 85%. Polyphony did a great job. The only my concern is speed feels a bit too slow and the feeling of traction and limits are not so great. Also Viper SRT10 and Ford GT feels more like muscle cars from 60-th than super cars, what they actually are.
I'm more in agreement with your rating for GT5, but then your comment about speed seems a little off (and it's something that's been covered
hundreds of times before on this forum). The sense of speed is entirely realistic - you just don't get the other senses of speed you would from driving a real car, like feeling the car through all the controls, all-pervading wind noise and other such experiences.