Haha yea, the site is pretty gay about linking. It was some direct, non-spoiler, non bullshot screens straight from the game that look pretty damn good in my view. Way better than I was expecting in some cases. I can imagine how good that will look on my hdtv.

I guess it'll come down to just how well it ends up looking while being upscaled to 720p on my 360, if it's truly 540p, or whatever the resolution apparently is.

My guess is it'll look pretty damn good, since it has apparently never failed to look amazing every single time the game was shown live or in private hands on.

There is a new statement linked to the question of resolution:http://forum.alanwake.com/showthread.php?p=69940#p...

still talking about resolution? man... issues or what.
It looks great so who gives a shit.

Yep games looks stunning regardsless of 720p / 540p or negative -10000p who gives a crap :)

More clear than that it cant get,the dev has spoken its 720p now can we leave this now.

Jeez

Yea, the game really does look amazing, and that's all that matters, or should matter.

That was also a very in depth and informative answer. It may not necessarily directly say what some people apparently want to hear them say, but I think it puts into perspective all the work that goes into the game (duh) and perhaps everyone should learn to appreciate all the work that goes into crafting the overall package, as opposed to concentrating on the most minor of details, especially when the game looks so damn fantastic. Nobody had significant complaints about the game's visuals, until pixel counters provided their input. That alone should speak volumes.

If the game actually does turn out to be 540p, or whatever, which it may very well be, then clearly it was done for a reason. Perhaps, for their engine, the amazing lighting and shadows, which are some of the best we've seen this gen, are what received the quality of resolution that some were hoping the base rendering of a scene would receive.

Well, I've got my BA in Media Art and Animation, and I don't see anything wrong with the animation itself. It is well timed and the transitions are smooth. The do a good job of blending the Mo-cap. I don't like some of the facial animation, but I'm hoping it just hasn't been completely implemented yet. There is no "garbage" from what I've seen. You may not like the direction they went with the choice of movement, but it is still done correctly. Over-acted maybe.
On the note with Uncharted- it does have very nice animations, but there are still moments where you can see some weirdness with the timing. It is obviously using much more key-framed animation( where they get mega kudos from me), but I think it is the variety of context animations that make it stand out. I am a bit of an animation whore, and think it is one of the most important things that can be emphasized for a great looking game...

And there it is !

Cool, glad to see I'm not on my own here! :)Oh, well that changes everything. I hereby retract my previous statements because the professional has spoken. Make room for the pro, people!

On second thought, no. The animations are quirky, unrealistic and generally just look akward and weird. I don't need a "BA in media Art and Animation" to see that, all I need is a pair of eyes (or even one eye would do. But I have two, just so you know)...

In a game like this, where light and shadow play such a major role, could it be said that the quality or resolutions of those things in particular, are more important than the native rendering resolution of the game, especially when one of the apparent gains of the lowered resolution, is 4XMSAA?

I've read so many posts on Beyond3D and it has certainly been stated on many an occasion that they'd be willing to sacrifice resolution for gains in the areas of AA or texture filtering. However, though, just because posters on beyond3d say that, doesn't mean it's necessarily the right thing to do, of course.

I guess it all comes down to how much we really value 4XMSAA. Do we really like our games to be as clean as this one looks, or don't we? I mean, from looking at a number of titles that only use 2xAA and aren't native 720p, they certainly look clean enough to me, so I guess simply lowering the AA to 2xAA, and raising the resolution a bit, may not have been a viable option for Remedy to keep their game at the quality they're comfortable with.

And then if the choice is between a true native 720p with 4XMSAA/2XMSAA/No AA at all with potentially glaring performance issues, or 960x540 with 4XMSAA and solid performance, while also having yourself a fantastic looking game that is being referred to as, bar none, the 360's most visually impressive title, then the choice is clear. The same website that is releasing all these screenshots, also released some videos, and everyone was impressed with the videos, until pixel counters provided a number to go with the pretty videos. Because the game doesn't always look as flattering in still pictures as it does in motion, that's a reason for hell to break loose?

The way I see it is this: People who purchase the version of Alan Wake that is not actually an interactive videogame, but instead a series of still, blurry, screenshots, will be disappointed with how the game looks. There'll be plenty for us to criticize the game for, I'm sure. Story? Length? Alan Wake's weird looking, some say ugly, wife? Animations not what we would've wanted? Where did Alan find that jacket, at a yard sale? :P

Haha, you know I had to drop it in there! :D

Going to start adding a TM at the end whenever I say that.

Optimus, I think we're all in agreement here that the game looks fantastic, regardless of it being sub 720p. And that the better trade-off is lower the resolution of whatever buffers, to make headroom for more important elements.

The point is the marketing of this game, 360 exclusives in general, and HD consoles this generation. All this marketing bullshit about how we got these fantastic HD consoles with HD games, shoving HDTV's in to the consumers face, etc etc. Then when it turns out most of the games we're playing, over 5 years into this generation, are sub-HD, it's hard to blame people for feeling a little toyed with...

You feel toyed?

Oh, no doubt about that, the PR was unqeustionably lackluster, and that's probably putting it politely. Just hate seeing a solid developer have all the discussion move entirely away from the true merits of the game they've created, and instead see the discussion diminish into pure console wars.

I enjoyed reading the Alan Wake thread at GAF or the official forums, until recently. I look forward to some new officially released vids before release. The focus needs to be put back where it belongs.

THat was in response to his qualification by saying he is finishing up school, that wasn't for you, cool guy. And I can respect that you don't like the movements, but animation-wise I can't see any lacking on the issue of actual animation and transitions. My education doesn't make my opinion undisputable, but I don't agree that the animation is terrible, or lacking. We could very well be looking at different aspects and what we qualify AS good animation...

I get what Froz is trying to say with regards to the animation. They may not be Uncharted levels of good, but as we are looking at some lowly writer, and not a badass like Nathan Drake or Sam Fisher, the animations may seem -- if nothing else -- appropriate or servicable, if still somewhat awkward in some cases, specifically hopping over that little barrier thing, compared to the kinds of things we've become use to seeing.

i agree, i've said the animations where weird from the get go. both body and facial. they just dont look that polished compared to what we've been seeing recently. and they're all the more noticable because the rest of the game looks brill.

oh, and i'm a 3D illustrator/animator, my word is law...lmao.

But Kenshin wasn't using his qualification (what qualification anyways, we don't even know what it is?!) as an argument to back up his opinion, He just casually mentioned he finished his school in response to my question as to where he'd been all this time. You, on the other hand, started your post with your qualifications as a mean to support your opinion on the matter. Those are two entirely different things. Other than that, we disagree in a big way regarding the animations.

The animations are servicable as in, for instance: When you press forward, he does something that resembles walking. Other than that, it's subpar. It's not just 'not the best'. It's 'below average', especially for a game of this statue.Oh you!

For Fucks sake people the animations look fine, 720p or not whatever the case may be, the game looks stunning, lets move on.

the resolutuon doesnt bother me, but actual HD would be nice for a change, especially after so long. it isnt a deal breaker tho, COD proves you can have decent visuals with sub-HD res

the animations however, well, sure, they're "fine", but they dont really go beyond that. servicable would be a better word for them imo.

To you and a few others they not (thats fine), to the rest of us there more than fine so stop harping on about it, and i thought the dev mgr just came out and stated it will run at 720p on our screens?, so again so harping on about it.

i've mentioned the animations twice in this thread i think, hardly "harping on about it" is it...lol

That was the 3rd time :)
I have not watched any videos (except original announcement trailers.. rem them about 6 years ago), i been only looking at screens.

Well my original quote was to everyone in general, not just you.

maybe you shouldnt have replied to me then? just a thought. saves confussion