"Judging from what I have seen so far, there doesn't seem to be much going on at once and it's quite dark which hides a lot of the scenery.

Of course it matters more if the game is fun and looks good enough, but I don't think we have a game here which comes close to the technically most impressive games currently available from a technical perspective. (high resolution textures, amazing physics like playing inside a building which is falling apart, amount of dynamic light sources, etc)"

In Pelaaja Magazines previews were mention that there is also larger scale action scenes. They also did play small part of chapter four were Alan and Barry are trapped to Festival stage and huge mount of enemies are attacking against them very aggressively. Alan needs to use shotgun and flashbangs to stop them. In Gamersyde preview was mentioned that there is also some huge size game levels. Also day time scenery is very impressive as seen in videos and previews.

Gamersyde did tell which are the strong points of Alan Wake:

"the total absence of aliasing (720p 4x FSAA), the breathtaking realistic lighting effects, the huge size of certain levels, SSAO, the atmospheric effects, the humongous size of some moving objects, the vegetation which interacts with characters and wind, or the largely satisfying framerate (with a light tearing that should disappear in the retail version) and many other physical and graphical effects, Alan Wake never ceases to amaze you with relative ease."

Every AAA game have at least one very impressive technical solutions, but Alan Wake has many of those. It may not have as high textures as GoW3 or as many dynamic light sources as Killzone 2, but in overall tecnical perspective it seems to be a masterpice just as Uncharted 2 were.

I have a simple question to anyone out there. How many of you that have played Uncharted 2 have also played Alan Wake? Anyone? Crickets.....Because the game isn't out yet! Lets stop comparing some videos online to actual experienced gameplay. These review websites have obviously played the game and they feel that AW is at the top when it comes to graphics. Believe it or not PS3 owners but the 360 does have beautiful games and it has the ability to stay on par with the PS3. If AW was on the PS3 I have a feeling we would be seeing comments on how its another exclusive that proves how powerful the PS3 is.
When this year is done we will see if the 360 truly can compete with the PS3. Splinter Cell, Alan Wake, Halo:Reach are all heavy hitters in the graphics department. Lets try to hold back the console favoritism until these games are out and we can truly see what they look like.
P.S. I'm not downplaying how good U2, Killzone 2, MGS4 and GOW3 look. I'm just saying the 360 can compete.

nothing ive seen in alan wake can compare to crysis , killzone2, heavy rain or uncharted 2 this is simply a bias article.

i think most of us can assume it will look great but through unbiased eyes it appears to be a very average engine and if you really believe it to be graphics king thats your opinion but on a dvd which holds around 6 gigs i find it very very hard to believe.

360 is 5 years old ps3 is 4 and the pc still holds the best technical graphics and always will and second is ps3 easily.

i still have yet to see anything remotely close to mgs4 on 360 i own both consoles and i will be buying alan wake but im not an idiot when it comes to which console will provide more technical power and they are both vastly outdated compared to high end pcs, truth is the consoles are holding back the progression of future visuals.

**************************************************
@RAZurrection

About crisis2 being inferior to Crysis 1 :
"Of course it won't. At best it'll look like Crysis 1 on medium at 720p."

==> so why do you bring this poor generic shooter in the thread ?

The games quality is unrelated to it's graphics. I was just using it as an example of title thats caused the 360 to leapfrog the PS3 in graphics, i'm sure it'll play as well as Crysis 1 which got either an 89 or 90% aggregate which isn't bad at all.
*********************************************

that is not my point. I m talking about game quality.
I m asking you a question :
If Crisis2 will, according to you, be worst than Crisis1, it is perhaps not the best game to bring in this type of discussion ?

Since we basically know nothing from Crisis2, why making poor claim like
"I was just using it as an example of title thats caused the 360 to leapfrog the PS3 in graphics"

that is my question.

No, having seen both engines I can confirm first hand the 360 looked and ran much better. The fact that they use it as their showcase to medias where consoles don't apply speaks volumes for their development progress. Not saying the PS3 version will be bad, but...parity is extremely rare these days in multis and that's most likely not going to happen here.

Uh they say it runs better on 360 too

"If the game's shader-heavy it runs a bit faster on 360" Here's Crytek CEO Cavet Yerli confirming they want CryEngine 3 to push shading as far as it can go (7 minutes in)

And, they're on PC as well, but no-ones going to pretend they're the same as the console version.

Yeah the game does look nice, but it's no Crysis 2.

Parle vous anglais? None of my points have been rebutted.

Heard this rhetoric for years now (especially in 2008, oh boy) I think people like you should be quiet at least until the PS3 matches the 360s sales to avoid looking silly again. Then you can talk sales.

If you think so. IMO a console/cpu/Graphics card hyped to be the most powerful of it's product on the market should at least be able to match a similar product that's 1 year older.

It's graphics are passable. That's what an 8.5 is. Unless you have a low expectation. Bare in mind that multiplatform games of 2010 bar is Crysis level graphics, shouldn't PS3 exclusive look 3-4 times better?

OK. No skin off my nose. It's not like Gears of War is setting the bar like Alan Wake and Crysis 2!

How can it own a throne when Gamersyde just put a 360 exclusive up there with Crysis and Crysis 2 set to stun on Xbox 360?

No offense to you sir, but I didn't derail it. Some of the regulars merely came in to play down AW graphics alongside Crysis 2 & Rage. Unfortunately whenever a 360 exclusive has good graphics, this becomes all too predictable.

How does actually playing the game change the graphics from seeing it beeing played by someone else on video?

When I saw the first footage of UC2 during E3 09 I knew it was going to be phenomenal, that's why it recieved all those E3 awards for best visual design, best graphical technology etc... If you can stream gameplay video of the final build to your TV or PC, it doesn't change your ability to judge that title in general. Those are supposed to represent the final game and they do.

As long as it's gameplay, it's perfectly valid to discuss this matter.

How different would the outcome of this thread be if Alan Wake was a PS3 exclusive title?

OT: I really would love to see more previews like this one, Alan Wake looks incredible.

Thank you.  At least there are other people out there who get it.

The more funny in this story it is how gamersyde have said
"Alan Wake top all the 360 games and can only be compared to the best ps3 game"

(proving that the PS3 is on the top right now)

and then how it was translated to :
"Gamersyde just put a 360 exclusive up there with Crysis and Crysis 2 set to stun on Xbox 360"

I think I just have proven you were wrong RAZurrection

Because we are in selnor's thread, who is like usually overhyping visuals of xbox exclusive title and starting with flamebait article which states that AW is technically at the front... which he interprets as the best looking thing ever.