I guess you haven't seen the new PGR4 scans Inflatable. I know you have a strong PC bias in terms of performance, but the fact is the launch titles had 3 months with Xenos. It has a divergent shader:texture balance from the GPUs up to that point, it has a different featureset with more features than the GPUs up to that point, and it has a divergent workflow in regards to framebuffer utilization. *Every* developer I know, and I do mean every single one, accepts that the launch titles scratched the surface and there is far more the systems (PS3 included here) can do than their launch titles showed.

Console game development history and developers really disagree with you. Even Turn10 does -- they fully expected 720p/60fps/HDR/4xMSAA with 3D animate grass, spherical harmonics, variance shadow maps, and so forth. A number of games have shown some nice strides, graphically, from launch titles.

As for the argument about physics, answer me this: How is that bottlenecking graphics?

To answer my own question: it isn't. The CPUs are clearly capable of 9,000 physics calculations, per car, 360 times per second and obtaining 60fps. Knowing GPUs as I do, there are many graphical techniques they could have applied that would have been completely GPU dependant. It doesn't consume masses of GPU cycles for AF for example and we have seen some games with excellent AF levels. So you cannot blame it on the CPU/physics/AI, etc, and we know the GPU is capable of it. So why is a game with fairly simplistic graphics not using it?

@ Op: I chose the crappy shot because it was at the top of one of Xboxyde's media posts and was shocked to see it -- and it is utter trash. Truly a worse case scenario, but the better ingame shots still show horrible overuse of bloom, all sorts of aliasing all over the place, alpha dithering on trees, pixelated grass, and so forth. Take this shot as an example:

http://xboxlive.fr/view_screen.php?jeu=390&screen=...

Completely oversaturated bloom.
Significant edge aliasing.
Low levels of AF.
Interior aliasing, presumably render targets; e.g. the tail lights have 3 small white specs.
Alpha (transparency) dithering on the trees on the left side.
Flat paint shader.

Ridge Racer, a year old game, ran at 60fps, and was pretty much universally slammed for its graphics by many game critics and Xbox fans, and its sales represent that. Yet it doesn't look too shabby (at least competitive) when compared next to Forza 2. e.g. http://i15.tinypic.com/2vvm3w8.jpg

It isn't to say Ridge Racer (or Toca 3 on the PC) are better games. It doesn't sound like it--sounds like Forza Motorsport 2 hit a homerun in simulation and gameplay. But the grinding part is the Turn10 rhetoric "old build" and artificially keeping expections high and people talking up the graphics and bashing other games to defend Forza 2. So when I see the "OMG! BBQ these graphics are awesome!" I really, really cannot comprehend it. The game's graphics are servicable.

But hey, these are all old builds. We can put our trust in Turn10 to deliver everything they claimed and blow us away...

Right? That IS what "old build" is leading us to believe. Right? Maybe better graphics will come in an update with all the cut game content!

Ok so on my work Dell 20" LCD running via VGA at 1368 x 768, it's a bit of a jag fest. Then again, so was PGR3. I imagine other people will have more mileage in that regard, but it's very noticeable.

AF on the other hand looked decent. Won't comment on HDR/Bloom as I'm still developing an eye for it.

Frame rate was butter smooth and I totally suck at driving.

I'm sure the simulation aspects and online will be great however.

Well I didn't think this game had an AF problem, might be a better way of putting it. Mind I only had a quick go...

There's been some 360 games with quite horrendous AF

Nope. The latest confirmed by Che is 2xMSAA, and before that at GDC 2006 Dan confirmed it would be 1x (no), 2x, and 4xMSAA dependant on framerate, and before that Xbox.com noted 2xMSAA. So the chronological flow is: 4xMSAA, 2xMSAA, variable MSAA, 2xMSAA gameplay/4xMSAA replays. The pic I linked to above, from gameplay, clearly doesn't have 4xMSAA.

It wouldn't be so bad if it edge aliasing was the only issue. And sadly it isn't as the game has a lot of issues with edge aliasing as well as render target, shader, and texture aliasing which appear to all have been neglected.

And I cannot believe you are extrapolating all of this from SDTV. Are you aware that some older games didn't downscale to 480p and instead rendered at native 480p? i.e. comparing SD resolutions and making judgements about HD resolutions isn't a one-for-one, especially as the Xbox APIs have developed.And no matter what people say there isn't 4xMSAA.

Well, it isn't THAT bad. True, if you bought a 360 based purely on the hopes and promises of Forza Motorsport 2 I would say you are down creek with no paddles.

But I doubt many people did that. And it does appear gameplay Turn10 delivered, so there is that to lay your hat on, so you are getting a good game out of the deal--just one over hyped by fans trying to reinforce the false PR they were force fed for months with false hope. And graphically there are significantly better looking games coming: Bioshock, DMC, Halo 3, HL2 Orange, PGR4, Mass Effect, and so forth. For those on limited budgets wanting killer games with killer looks to go with it -- what you expect from 1st party exclusive software -- then 2007 is your year.

I know how you feel though. I have a budget and FM2 was the game I was looking forward to. But it has only strengthened my resolve for 65nm (that and having a number of friends have their 360 go belly up). Personally I don't want to own 10 racing games. I only bought 13 console games last gen. So I know the dissappointment. This is why the first Forza and the GT series have been successful: You get your cake and ice cream (cake being a sim, ice cream being graphics). Personally, the reduction in cars in course was a big "meh" point for me outside of the PR (which I only pick at because they don't use their PR site to correct the situation and some people think it looks great... good times!). I quite enjoyed rFactor and Toca with a lot of people on course. 12 was my baseline. The sense of speed with FF with accurate simulation have me interested, but it isn't the system seller it once was (don't freak this my opinion). Now I am looking at PGR and Halo is get me to fully jump in instead of dangling my toes in the proverbial waters. But hey, if I can play as much as I want without buying why should I complain :P

PR :P

And it is technically true.

60 fps => It is rock stable 60fps
4x full-screen anti-aliasing => Replays do have 4xMSAA... although can a game with 16x photomode now claim 16xMSAA? 0_o
high-dynamic-range lighting => Verdict is out on this. HDR is technically more than bloom, but also iris effects, tone mapping, etc
720p high-definition glory => It is in 720p

Just ignore it, it is PR.

i couldn't drive for shit with the Racing Wheel. You can't tell me this thing is worth $150 or even $50. Why should I have to turn the wheel 45 degrees for it to register on screen? Where are the sensitivity options? It should start picking up movement at 10 degrees MIN!

I was so pissed at the wheel I didn't bother looking at the graphics. I started shouting expletives when my rear window just BLEW OUT. Got hit from behind by a Ferrari. I did manage to use the pedals properly. Couldn't steer, but I rammed the shit out of him! lol, I wonder if AI can get whiplash. I noticed he didn't back up for a good five secs. Guess they can simulate pretty good car accidents.