Prologue isn't a full game and I still can't wrap my head around why reviewers compared it to an entire title anyhow - it's like comparing a package of bananas to a crate of said bananas.
Well, it did far have fewer cars than FM1, so you may have a point there. Of course, if you point out to a Forza fan that GT5 will have more than twice as many cars as FM3, they'll quickly tell you that it's not about the number of cars, but rather the overall experience.
So if you point out that the graphics are substantially better in GT5, they'll quickly tell you it doesn't matter, and it's all about the quality of the overall
racing experience. If you point out that GT5 allows twice as many cars on track, they'll quickly tell you it doesn't matter, and it's all about the quality of the actual simulation. If you point out that Forza has pretty dodgy physics and inaccurate track maps, they'll quickly tell you it doesn't matter because it also allows for car damage. If you point out that GT5 also allows for damage, they'll quickly tell you it doesn't matter because there's no guarantee that all of the cars will be damageable. If you point out it's entirely possible the number of damageable cars in GT5 could turn out to be more than the
total number of cars in Forza, they'll quickly tell you it doesn't matter because it's shameful to not have every car at the same level of "quality." If you point out the fact that the quality of even the lesser cars in GT5 is far superior to the quality of
any of the cars in Forza, they'll quickly tell you it doesn't matter because it's about the
overall experience, bringing us neatly back to Step 1.
Where was I? Oh yeah. I don't think that cranking out Forza like Madden games is necessarily anything to brag about, and it's funny that their trolls follow the same philosophy as T10; just relentlessly pump stuff out there and
tell everyone it's better, even if it's actually of rather dubious quality.
