I don' t see why you think F1 looks good. The graphics are bad. It is hard to even think of them as next gen.
Motorstorm has good graphics but isn' t very impressive. The mud and up close stuff is pretty good but everything in the distance is bad. You can tell they didn' t have enough memory for high res textures in the background. And they use the same friggn' bush thousands of times.

You can tell they didn' t have enough memory for high res textures in the background

Or just not very good at using what' s there. Just compare MotorStorm to what VF5 is achieving in it' s latest build texture-wise, Evolution have a long way to go. Sure it' s not the same type of game, but I' ve seen Ninja Gaiden Sigma and DMC4 all push better textures than MotorStorm.

How about we only comment about gameplay shots eh?

Reading impressions of what are obviously touched up promotional shots is amusing but it gets old very quickly. These screenshots are meant to look good, they' re meant to get people hyped about the games. Gameplay doesn' t look like that. MotorStorm looks nice enough during play but it' s not mindblowing. The most impressive stuff in the game is the damage modelling and physics. Graphically is a combination of low resolution textures hidden by motion blur, aliasing, awesome lighting and partical effects and so so vehicle models. In the demo the framerate is poor but if that' s fixed then it' ll be a good game.

Motorstorm looks nice for what they' re working with, but it really wasn' t all that enjoyable for me. Yeah, it' s a racing game, yeah the damage modeling is impressive, but what is there to make me want to play the game? I spent more time crashing to check out the physics than I did actually playing the game. I' m sure some people will call it the next best thing since Star Wars: Super Bombad Racing, but I don' t really think it' s for me.

I like how fernandino pastes press releases from the companies that made the game as unbiased facts.