The point I am making...

It went over your head.


And let's not get ahead of ourselves mentioning Fast Racing Neo. That game hasn't been demonstrated in any capacity yet. And what little they have shown via pictures was underwhelming at best.

Went back, read, edited before you posted this :P

So try again on that quote.  The basic point that the tech feature list is still valid, but the game as a whole is not as much of an achievement.  Those two points - being the best in terms of graphical features and failing to be the best technical achievement - are not mutually exclusive.

It´s a prove that those effects can be achieve on a WiiU. And if one tiny developer can do that with a tiny budget... then is a good showcase of what a big company could do with a big budget on WiiU if they were interested to do the effort and the inversion.

Shin´en was able to do one of the best Wii racers with only 44mb, with very nice graphics runing at 60fps.

Neo fast racing is using 5K textures on a WiiU, the first screenshots look like this:

This is impressive for a WiiU, speacially for an eshop game at 60fps.

I made my stance about those so-called technical merits. It's like praising a game for being 1080p on the PS3 or XBox 360, only to realise it's a 2D side-scroller with simple to no physics, primitive A.I., barely any depth, and levels that fits on less than half the RAM available . Of course they'll be able to check a lot of things on that checklist if the scale of the game compares to what was found during the 16bits era.

I'm exagerrating, but surely, you'll get my point?

But then again, you get defensive for no reason, and seem to just be here to stir shit and argue for arguing sake, so maybe you won't. 

I had seen those pics. And not once did they impress me. I know a lot of you buy into the "OMG big ass texture files" hype, but I don't. And the end result isn't particularly impressive to my eyes. 

And it's specifically because they are not taxing the hardware that their games can run at 60fps. Not because of some diabolical wizardry.

I got "defensive" because of your condescending tone, which I see quite enough of on here and it urks me when someone takes the attitude of "you don't agree, so you must be really dense."

And your comparison is rather aburd.  The technical merits are there whether you want to discus them or not.  There's no "stance taking," no "opinions," it's cold, hard, objective facts.  It has a ton of technical features going on in the game.  It being small doesn't discount those features.  You seem to miss the point I bolded:  a game can be the most technically advanced from a feature standpoint (and Art of Ballance is whether you want to admit it or not) and yet be less technically demanding than another given game.  On that I would agree, Art of Ballance is not. 

And you taking pot shots at Shin'en for no good reason is just silly, btw.  Makes you look quite a bit more arrogant than you already did.

I have to admit, that sometimes I don´t like your attitude in some answers.

The bold part sounds specially out of place.

Curl and I have talked about these things for quite some time. I know he can provide and defend his own stance. He certainly doesn't need you to do that.
Now, I haven't called him dense once, nor implied it. I said he's a huge fan of Shin'en and expressed that I don't agree with his sentiment regarding them and stated reasons why.

Taking pot shot at Shin'en? Seriously? Because I don't share your opinion about them? After what you've said to me, I sense some hypocrisy here.

As for the rest of what you said, if you'd take the time to read what I say, you would see I already made my stance clear about everything.

But it's true though. People do hype this feature more than anything else about the game. 

There's more to words than their denotative meaning.  You're statements towards both Curl and Goodnightmoon came off as quite passive aggressive to me, if that's not the case I appologize.  

As for "pot shots at Shin'en," I don't give two craps about them on any real perosnal level, haven't played their games, just followed a couple of their works enough to know the technical basics.  But you were implying that they were somehow incompetent or unreliable or frauds, something I don't take to kindly to.  If that wasn't your intention, then ok.  But I don't take kindly to creators being criticized by armchair critics. Oh and on the hypocrisy bit, I am more than aware of the snark in my post.  When I think people are being disrespectful, I tend to reciprocate.  Again, my appologies if most of this was misunderstanding.

As for your stance, I still don't quite see what you're saying other than "Art of Balance is not the most technically demanding game due to small scale."  To which I agreed.  My point was that the game *is* technically advanced in terms of feature set.  You seem to simply ignore or overly downplay this for little reason.  Again, if the aggression I assumed was in here was not intentional I appologize.

So in summary, if you weren't trying to be a jerk, then my appologies for treating you like one.  But perhaps watch your wording a bit more; some of your statements could very easily be misconstrued as baiting or outright insulting based on how they are read.  We only have text to go on.