They did say that while the first game had more of a fantasy story, the second is more straight sci-fi.

I confess I haven't seen Attack on Titan so I'm unfamiliar with Sawano's work, but I like what I've heard in trailers. 

I'm much more likely to enjoy a sci-fi story than the style of fantasy the first game had. I've always been a bit picky with fantasy. I generally prefer the fantasy part to be done in addition to a realistic-ish foundation (even if still completely fictional). The Gentlemen Bastard books are probably the best example of that. Anything goes for sci-fi :p

I'm a fan of him, so i'm looking forward to getting my hands on XCX's full OST. He'll have his work cut out topping XC's though.

Get a room... :D

Ain't that the truth...

I reckon the biggest hurdle facing the game as a whole is it will face an uphill battle to escape from its prequel's shadow, given how beloved the first Xenoblade is.

That may be your experience, the majority of comments I've seen use Image Quality in reference to how the picture looks, that would include anything relates to the the visuals of a game.

I disagree regarding Digital Foundry's use of the term Image Quality, they use it as a blanket term to cover everything related to how the game ends up looking.

Anyway we can agree to disagree on this, I think Image Quality is a perfectly fitting term to describe the visuals of a game or version of a game on a particular platform & it's clear from the context in which I use it what my meaning is when I use it.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-mario-kart-8

Look at digital foundry's use of image quality in this article. 

"Starting from the top, then, there has been a surprising amount of confusion surrounding the resolution of the game with some sources even suggesting a native 1080p presentation. We can finally put that rumour to rest right here and confirm that Mario Kart 8 instead operates at what is effectively the console's standard 1280x720. Of course, considering the quality of the visuals, this can hardly be considered a disappointment especially when other developers are struggling to hit 1080p consistently on more powerful hardware. What is surprising, however, is the complete omission of anti-aliasing in any form. At the very least, Nintendo has previously utilised a basic edge-smoothing algorithm across its Wii U titles and such a feature could have demonstrably improved image quality without a serious performance hit. As it stands, however, we're left with a heavily aliased presentation filled with obvious stair-stepping and pixel-crawling artefacts throughout most scenes. "

"Thankfully, the lacklustre image quality does little to spoil an otherwise magnificent visual package. It's immediately apparent that a lot of effort is invested in creating rich, vibrant courses loaded with peripheral detail. Tracks are alive and bursting with colour and animation backed by an overhauled lighting solution and a smattering of excellent texture-work. The addition of gravity-defying magnetic sections has also allowed the designers to go a bit crazy with track design, giving way to massive moving structures and detailed metallic obelisks rising sharply out of the terrain."

So if anything that is visual affects image quality, why would they say despite the lackluster image quality the game has an otherwise maginficent visual package? Obviously image quality only has to do with the actual clarity of the image, as they were only talking about resolution,artifacts, and aliasing in reference to image quality. They weren't talking about texture detail, lighting effects, or polygon count iuntil they were contrasting it with the poor image quality.  

I would prefer 1080p @ 30fps rather than 720p @ 60fps

I couldnt agree more. 

Actually the argument doesnt seem they look bad, but that they dont look real life realistic. By saying they look bad from there is no doubt an atempt at console wars, wich is a shame.

This game looks amazing in every way and it doesnt deserve to be defamated like that.

Really? Console wars? Because people feel the faces look stiff and lifeless? Go back through the thread and see what people actually have to say about their dislikes of those faces.  Console war has nothing to do with it.

Not surprising that you come to this conclusion though. After all, you're one who acts the very same way you describe when it comes to non-Nintendo related stuff.

They dont look lifeless and stiff! They look anime! Are you unable to deal with the fact that they have a different design choice than what you want? Is it because the rest of the world looks realistic, even though its fantasy?

This is a JRPG, their faces are not supposed to be realistic! Cmon...

Thanks for the link, i know my posts are logical. My opinion doesnt change from console manufacturer to console manufacturer. 60 fps is the best thing for gaming over resolution and pretty effects. Its a game, not a movie. If you played Xenoblade chronicles you would know that very well. Their faces on that game were really pixelated textures. Didnt hear you complain about that one and its unversally considered the best JRPG of last generation.

Seriously, blame me for not beeing a graphics slave and enjoying actual gameplay.