argh ...

I do agree Alan Wake looks more to an Uncharted2 game than a God of War3 game so making the comparaison U2 vs Aw is fair.

BUT, you finish your post with : "if they can reach or beat UC2 they'll probably have a good chance of reaching the short list for GotY"
Because you believe that IF they can beat U2 graphically then AW will be GOTY ?

This point is completely broken man, Bioshock2 was not the prettiest game of the year and still was GOTY.
Crisis, the technical masterpiece, has never win any award because people do agree that it is just "another shooter"

AW may not as pretty as their are claiming but his strenhgt is not about how powerfull the 360 is BUT how good AW is !

yes, but 1 site (gamersyde) has saied AW was the best so you just have to accept it, end.

@selnor,

by the way, where is the gamersyde (GoW3 preview) you mentionned  ?

Between Alan Wake, Mass Effect 2 and the best versions of Crysis 2 & Rage 360 really seems to have leapfrogged the PS3 graphically this year.

Uhm, I thought the makers of Crysis 2 were in fact boasting the PS3 capabilities?

And those games do indeed look good, but I'm feeling like you're neglecting what Heavy Rain, Gran Turismo 5 and God of War 3 are bringing to the table.

it is because they bring it on the "wrong" table, the one tagged with "Sony".

Is focus and the gameplay looks "STAGED" in front of a blue screen when fighting the big monster, you can see the separate lines between the background and the cliff that Kratos is standing from, also is a script, movie like, button pressing command gameplay with some platform in it.

The actions reminds me of Devil May Cry 3 but with out the grappling sword and for "me" this kind of gameplay falls in the Aracade category..

Wide as God of War 3? when under ground theres little to nothing going on there. 

God of War 3 is impressive for its genre but not as impressive as the first two on PS2 when there was not much compared too.

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)

I'm seeing lots of defensive arguments from the PS3 owners. Its funny when a game like AW comes along to compete with the best on PS3 the arguments jump to how "technically" its not on par with GOWIII or U2. Then we can swing the argument back to Reach and how "technically" it destroys both of those PS3 games. But then the PS3 owner arguments jump to how aesthetically its not quite on par. Its a circular argument and 360 owners we will never win. Just let them have their day in the sun with graphics and we can sit back and enjoy some amazing games.

Isn't only Mass Effect 2 available at this point, so how would you know for sure? And that title lacks anti-aliasing (not that it matters much for this game) and IMO the characters still look like puppets. Maybe you just prefer the art direction rather than technical excellence?

I wouldn't be surprised if Rage and Crysis 2 won't differ enough to matter, like with most multi-platform games (sacrifices to keep both versions similar).

Saw both this and Rage earlier in the year and were both significantly better on the 360. Crytek are showing the 360 version to the PC press before the PC version. It's a confidence thing.

Heavy Rain got an 8.5 at IGN on the gfx area, thats less than many cross platform games, not to mention the downgrades (see sig).

And GT5 & GoW are nice, but they're not Crysis 2/Rage 360 nice. Why list games that won't be competitive in the long run?