I think what he's worried about it that it will be a highlight reel the game's technical flaws, rather than an assessment based on the hardware it's running on which addresses both strengths and weaknesses. 

You express yourself 100 times better than me. Thanks.

Maybe, but I always found that game ugly. Not the fault of the developers of course.

I thought the trailer looked nice. And yes, some portions look ugly, I hate the look of the first main area for example. It's their first HD project, something to take into account as well. I don't think we'll see their next game on the Wii U though, they take too long to develop! :p

Looks awesome. Can't wait to play it Here's hoping for a Wii U price cut on E3. $100 would be perfect

Cheers. :) And no worries man, just trying to mediate a bit. Misundertandings can so easily trigger unintentional contentiousness. 

I would just say this part is what usually gets me because alot of the "downgrade" issues people reference were present from the start.  Mech's have never been super clean in terms of textures and polygons.  You can see the modest textures and polygon issues as early as the 2013 trailer and the interior textures being low res or suffering from heavily delayed popin in issue we saw quite plainly in the 2014 trailer.  Character model polygons being high or low relative to the importance of said characters is also something we've seen frequently throughout footage, though this didn't become nearly as apparent as it is now until recent vids that zoomed in more.  Now some things have changed for sure, like the LOD models from the early footage to now have seen optimization of polygons in favor of more distinguishable texture detail, as you pointed out before.  And some changes are not actually changes at all, but assumptions.  Some have said the character models have seen downgrades, but when you compare characters we have seen multiple times across multiple videos, detail is the same.  And the armor we saw from 2013 is still present in the same level of detail.  This isn't to say there aren't any changes at all, the game *is* in development.  But I would classify on the whole the changes as optimization as opposed to a Watch Dogs-esque "downgrading."  In other words, conscessions made for performance that strive to maintain the visual impact as much as possible as opposed to rampant degredation of detail on all fronts with little regard to effects to the visual experience. 

If my intent was purely to bash the game, I wouldn't have preordered a retail disk and a digital code, while having two copies means I can do side by side comparisons for texture pop and load times, the actual reason is so we can both play at the same time.

I will be covering the technical aspects such as framerate, in depth geometry and lighting differences between early versions and retail and such like that, so by it's very nature it's geared towards being an informative piece based on the technology, not based on the quality of the gameplay / how fun it is, that can be left to game reviews.

The ratio between how much stuff is flawed and how much stuff is positive technical wizardry is dependant upon the game itself delivering that tech, not on me deciding if it's good or not.

What i bring to the table with this is a brief tenure working on the game myself, while with Nintendo EAD, o while I will be referencing earlier builds/footage, the tech analysis isn't going to be a black and white everything-depends-on-the-difference analysis.

More a broad look into the design choices, benefits, downsides and limitations met while designing the game.

I guess some people are expecting nothing but criticism in your analysis. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I can take criticism, as long as it isn't all negative. :)

Sounds good.  That's actually the way it should be done because counting polygons and texture pixels really isn't helpful.  All games are downgraded along the way from a letter-of-the-definition perspective; that's a major part of optimization.  The question should be how effectively the optimizations preserve the visual integrity of the experience.  If they reduced one texture set by 75% but you never see it clear enough to notice, then it was not nearly as bad as reducing a texture by 50% that is constantly in your face and noticeable.  To make a rather basic comparison. 

Also, one design choice I don't agree with right off is the resistance to any kind of prerendering of cutscenes.  I don't mean ridiculous high-detail models, but perhaps the high-poly bases for the in game models with higher textures, just to give the scenes a cleaner look.  As it stands, you go into cutsenes and often have your face pressed up against textures that were clearly never meant to be seen at such close distances, the dolls being the biggest offender.