No, I was agreeing with you that I don't think that (quite correctly) that was Remedy's goal.  I think their initial goal was to deliver an action orientated thriller with strong horror overtones in a believable open world.  I think they then realised over time that they were going to struggle to combine the thriller/horror elements and a narrative in an open world and tweaked the core design accordingly.

Clearly they wanted the graphics to be decent, and clearly they had a focus on the graphics from a nightime/lighting perspective, which makes total sense.

From what I've seen they've delivered a really good game with graphics that are more than good enough to get the job done.  In the end I think it should be remembered that Sony, with their first party position, are simply in a much stronger position than MS if they want to ensure their console gets totally optimized, huge budget engines delivered to support some titles.  MS clearly gave Remedy a lot of support, but I don't think they are in the same position as Sony are with titles like God of War or Uncharted 2.

I was also agreeing that really, it's better to post with some real strong evidence vs a lot of passion and desire if you want to minimise the chances of eating your words.

Speaking of which, kudos to Selnor for acknowledging that passion and heart might have outweighed his mind in this particular case.

It's good to have passion, but it's better to be realistic about it.

Eurogamer said the graphics were "decent"

I was Also Wrong About Alan Wake, i would not Even Put it in the top 5 For Best graphics.
Poor Alan Wake, Over hyped, Still its a Great Game.

haha this.

Common people, dont be so cruel... so he made a bad prediction. With all the hype the game got from the press even I was thinking that this might turn out to be one of the top 3 best looking games this gen. Still, even tough its not THE best it looks great IMO, and somehow I like the fact that its more action oriented...

Well, lets hope that the sequel will be on the Nextbox and that it will look as real as it gets

I really can't tell when a score is "just" these days. I mean, everbody knows how the media works, most of the times those opinions are compromised by advertising contracts, bribes, and ultimetely fanboyism/controversy/and attention whoaring.

Today's media sells us gamers the idea that if a game is not "AAA", is just not good enough. How do they do that? when they only score 7-10 in a supposed 1-10 scale, and lots of games with flaws get away with 8s, many of them with 9s, so that when you see a game that it's REALLY FLAWED it gets a 7, and that's presented right there as utter trash in the eyes of the gamer. High 90s and 80s are too frequent, and games that should deserve less are scored 7s and 8s. It's just a mess. Metacritic doesn't help with their metascores, it actually makes the shit hit the fan (pun maliciously intended here).

Selnor is quite guilty of propagating this idea of only AAA matters. He had it in its sig for like forever. He lives by it, he truly believes in that shit. That's why I think his genuinely butt-hurt right now when Alan Wake is being received by the media like it is. Sorry Selnor, but it's all in your mind, next to your neverending obnoxius overhyping nonsense.

I consider myself a pretty picky gamer, I'm hard with my scores. This gen I've scored below 8 some games like Dead Space (7.6), Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 (7.6), Brutal Legend (7.6), Folklore (7), Killzone 2 (7.0). Just to name some of those games I've REALLY enjoyed but in my book I couldn't find any logical or objective reason to score any higher. I enjoyed every bit of NGS2 (I beat it 4 times, all dificulties) and Brutal Legend, especifically. If Alan Wake is a 7.6 or a TRUE 7 , then it's a game worth playing and has a high chance of being enjoyable. It's a shame you can't tell the difference between the true scores and the fake ones, all you can do is read the review and try it out for yourself (which is what ultimetely counts). I read IGN's Alan Wake review, and it sounds 7.6-8.0 to me, going by what the review says, that's how I get it...but the guy gave it a 9.0, go figure. 9 is the new 7.

haha, CGI, even though I only have 11 posts, I have been reading this website for almost a year. I do know you, specially for your Heavy Rain threads..you my friend...are like Shakespeare! But you always have one foot on earth, that makes the difference!

Yes, worded so by the eminent female reviewer with the following, impressive review resume from which to draw upon in her judgement;

Dead or Alive: Paradise - psp
Muscle March - wii
Super Monkey Ball: Step & Roll - wii
Plants vs. Zombies - iphone 
Matt Hazard: Blood Bath and Beyond - 360
Critter Crunch - ps3
Tony Hawk: RIDE
We Sing - wii
Buzz!: Quiz World - ps3
Jambo! Safari - wii
Jak & Daxter: The Lost Frontier - psp
LittleBigPlanet - psp
Take That Singstar - ps3

I think I'll pretend she smokes too much weed and read some other reviews instead.

Since we're learning lessons:

If you are console graphics HD whore then you need to be on PS3, it's that simple.

If you're into the well rounded game with graphics having a place in overall quality but not being THE thing that really matters, then chose the system with the library of games you most prefer. If you chose the one with the lower graphical capabilities then don't get into any graphics pissing contests and be content with the system you've got.

We've got a few 360 exclusive games not based on the Unreal Engine still to come in 2010, and we have Crysis 2. If these games don't take the graphics crown off the PS3 exclusives (or in the case of Crysis 2 the 360 version specifically takes the crown) then I think console graphical prowess this generation is a settled matter. So, if this turns out to be the case, I vote any thread along the lines of "OMG best console graphics ever!!!" for a 360 game from 2011 onwards should be auto-locked unless there are actual reviews published that give such a game 10's for visuals and make that kind of statement.

And given the PS3 will (presumably) be established as the console graphics power for the gen, any OMG console graphics threads for PS3 games should be "OMG! best PS3 graphics ever". There's just nothing but trolling in rubbing graphics superiority in the faces of 360 fans. Saying best PS3 graphics ever will of course mean best console graphics by definition, it's just a more dimplomatic way of putting it.

Point? More =/= better. I never said you should ditch 360, but if you want the best of the best from a console graphics technical perspective then you need PS3.