2) A conventional forced landing that ends with pilot loss of control, unseen power cables, large boulders, ditches, wire fences or other debri that cant be seen from x feet may work out less well,
3) In view of 2 some argue the chute will result in a more consistent and predictable outcome.
But by pulling the BRS handle you have already lost control. You are now at the mercy of the wind and fate.
I've seen the aftermath of two hot air balloon landing accidents where HT cables were hit at very low speed and the whole shooting match earthed, caught fire and killed people. On the end of a 'chute you would be in a similar situation and could only watch as the wind blows you into something nasty. If you were still flying the aircraft at least you might have a chance of avoiding them. So, on balance in the event of an engine failure I'd prefer the conventional PFL option rather than an instant chute pull, which appears to have been the case here.
One wonders how often the average PPL holder practices forced landings, or considers "what if...". This pilot seemed to prefer to immediately leave his fate to the 'chute where there seems to have been a very nice field to glide into.
The reported altitude being flown does leave me just a little sceptical because of the supposed "less than a minute" from the engine failure to being on the ground. So they came down at an average rate of more than 5,000 feet/minute! Even if the wings had dropped off it should have taken longer than that under the 'chute; and this was an aircraft initially flying level at cruise speed, then gliding, wasn't it?