Long thread is LONG! :D and full of good laughs, keep em coming

Well, this prediction turned out to be fail. I still can't wait to play the game though.

To be fair it's not the only review that talks about "decent* graphics :

Everyeye.it : "La telecamera che indugia spesso sulla maestosità del colpo d’occhio riesce a meravigliare in più di un’occasione lo spettatore. Purtroppo anche l’inquadratura deve tornare necessariamente alle spalle del protagonista, denunciando in questi frangenti non solo il riuso spietato di elementi architettonici e strutturali, ma la presenza di texture poco definite che stonano nel complesso scenico. Altri difetti evidentissimi interessano le routine fisiche, davvero elementari (quasi antiche) e le animazioni dei personaggi secondari, che non sempre durante le sequenze in game mostrano l’espressività gestuale che si conviene ad un titolo del genere. Impressionante, invece, la realizzazione degli effetti atmosferici, della nebbia malefica che si solleva, sferzata dal vento, ad indicare l’arrivo del pericolo, e brillante anche l’uso di effetti speciali, ben dosati ed ammaestrati. Il quadro globale che si compone, ovviamente, non è stupefacente come lo sarebbe stato nel lontano 2006 (quando il gioco fu presentato), ma è comunque intriso di un carattere particolare. La cifra stilistica di Alan Wake, dal punto di vista tecnico, è l’utilizzo distorto delle fonti di luce, esagerate e saturate: i fasci delle torce, dei lampioni, dei fari di un’auto, si allargano a dismisura, fin quasi a diventare pozze oleose e dense, verso cui correre per raggiungere la salvezza. Insomma, pur senza stupire (ed anzi lasciando un retrogusto amaro se si guardano i dettagli, dal morphing facciale alle texture), Alan Wake ha un suo strano sistema per costruire un colpo d’occhio in grado di meravigliare."

"The camera which often lingers on the majesty of the sight mangaes to impress the spectator in more than one occasion. Unfortunately the framing must necessarily return behind the protagonist (in 3rd person view), revealing in those circumstances not only the harsh reuse of architectural and structural elements, but also the presence of poorly defined textures that clash with the scenery. Some other evident flaws are seen in the basic physics (which seem almost outdated) and the support characters animations sometime fail to dispaly in-game the gesture expressivity needed for such a title. Instead the atmospheric effects are very impressive, like the evil mist which dissolves into the wind,  the use of well dosed and mastered special effects is also brilliant in forshadowing impending danger. The global result is obviously not as amazing as it would have been back in 2006 (when the game was unveiled), but is nonetheless imbued with it's own personality. Alan Wake technical signature style is the distorted use of light sources, exagerated and saturated : the torches' beam, the lamps' light, the headlamps, strech out excessively almost turing into dense oily pools you have to run to for salvation. All in all, even if it's not astonishing (leaving you with a bitter after-taste if you look at the details from facial expressions to textures), Alan Wake has its own weird way to build a sight able to amaze."      

@Hynad: Short answer: No it's not. Review my previous argument on the last page. 0.5% of the game library does not represent the overall package offered. Period. If you go to a scientific magazine (or your graduate paper or whatever) and say that your proof is that 0.5% of the total package is superior, thus the platform is superior, they'll laugh at you and with good reason.

As for the multiplats costing more etc, that's true, but that's true for BOTH platforms, not just one. And even if you look at exclusives alone, those 3 games are 2.5% of the total amount of exclusives, which basically leaves you in the same boat as looking at the total games. Also, isn't the X360 always being criticized for not having exclusives? And now, conveniently, all you people want to do is compare the exclusives, which the X360 clearly lacks. And that's supposed to be a fair comparison? Please.. I already explained this as well, and I also explained why multiplats are still the way to compare, but noooooo the only way that's right is the way that allows the PS3 to be superior, and not the objective one..

And I show bias? Really? Bias towards what exactly? Towards equality maybe? Or towards the lack of trolls? Or towards objective reasoning? Oh boy that must be real bad...

Multiplatform titles are not really the way to compare, since as we all know (well, you don't seem to know, but you're the obvious minority so I won't take you into the account, shall I) those games don't receive the treatment needed to make use of the PS3 architecture. When the games are developed for a system first, then ported (as is the case in most situations) then the original system will have a better performing version.

You're basically saying the PS3 isn't a more capable system than the 360 because developers just don't want to put the energy and money into taking the extra step to use the PS3's more intricate architecture. While when we see developers who are indeed using it (Naughty Dog, Guerrila, Santa Monica and recently, Square-Enix with Final Fantasy XIII) the 360 just can't keep up.

Now how is it objective to dismiss the most technically impressive games from this gen into the account?
And how is it more fair to compare 2 versions of a game that didn't share the same treatment?

I don't give a damn about multiplatform games.  I mentioned the Gears of War series as a benchmark for the 360 (as the UE3 is arguably optimised for the PC and 360 architecture), and could also throw a FPS like Halo3 or ODST into the mix to put head to head with Killzone 2.

Objectivity, fine.  Just remove your blindfold.

@Hynad:
Blah blah blah "not take architecture" blah blah blah. I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over again. Go back to the last page, and re-read the argument about the games where PS3 was lead-platform and the X360 still is keeping up or even surpasses the PS3. You are using arguments I've refuted a long time ago. Come up with something useful instead of repeating the same crap over and over again. I've heard it all.

Using FFXIII as an example is retarded. I can easily counter that with Bayonetta. But you'll probably say that Bayonetta was a bad port and FXIII means that the X360 is weak.. Or shall I mention Ghostbusters? I could also easily argue FFXIII as being a rush job since none of the 3 dvds are filled, which is space they could've used to at least increase the pre-rendered videos, which is not that hard of a job at all.. But yeah, you clearly want to overlook that and say the PS3 is definitely superior because the FFXIII version of it is better than the X360. Oh so now that it's convenient multiplats do matter? And you dare call me biased..? Please, don't waste my time.


And on another note, you're contradicting yourself. You mention FXIII and then you actually criticize me with this:

"And how is it more fair to compare 2 versions of a game that didn't share the same treatment?"

Are you feeling ok? Maybe your brain is malfunctioning.. Anyway, that's exactly the same thing that I just explained to you. X360 exclusives are definitely not getting the same treatment as those 3 PS3 exclusives, and guess what, those other 100+ PS3 exclusives also aren't. Also, exclusives across platforms can never get the same treatment when the companies have completely different philosophies. The only games that get the same treatment are multi-plats (excluding late ports). So, according to YOUR OWN statement, the way to go would be multi-plats, because the chance of them getting the same treatment there, is way bigger than exclusives getting the same treatment.

It's like you people have no reason at all... And I'm not blindfolded... You have glasses on that only allow you to see what you want to see. I'll rather be the knowledgeable black sheep than the standard sheep that fits in with the ignorant crowd.

No that was an excuse made up by PS3 fans, the fact is the PS3 architecture is overly complex and launched with a poor SDK.  Saying you cannot use multiplatform games for comparison is like a 360 user saying sales are good at the moment if we ignore Japan, its cherry picking to make your argument appear better.  It's no surprise though given all the PS3 fanbase has done this genration is cherry pick figures to make the system look like its performed better than it has imo. 

I would actually suggest he is the only one being remotely objective here mentioning more than 3 games to backup his opinion.

@slowmo:
Thanks. It's nice to have at least some support..

how many reviews reviews claiming Alan Wake Best graphics does he expect?

he only got 1 so far, lol

the proof is in the picture,,,you can talk all you want but at the end of the day it is the PS3 that has the top looking games on the consoles.

untill we see the same on X360,it's safe to assume that PS3 is a more capable console,,,,not by much but still more capable.

you can reply another wall  of text but the proof is on my side ;).(GOWIII,U1,U2,KZ2,GT5,HR,...)

if Ms doesn't want to invest like sony in graphics, then they have already forfeited the graphic war leaving sony as the leader.Which means you should accept that as well.So HW might be as powerful ,,might not be.At the end of the day some of the best looking games on consoles are on PS3.

End of discussion