Biggest graphics jump and gameplay

[Red Ranger]

Always felt this was a nice big jump.

Good example too, as with Super Mario 64, Pilotwings its a great example in "graphics jump".

[Cornholio857]

Stuff like GLQuake wasn't individually that groundbreaking yeah, but by the time stuff like Unreal and Outcast showed up PC gaming was pretty much a good generation ahead of consoles.

And I've also noticed the slowdown of graphical progress. A 2010 game compared to a 2005 game is far from as significant as 2000 vs 1995. Things like polycount aren't as relevant anymore, and some things like good animation isn't something that directly benefits from technical advances.

I second this. Just look a Virtua Fighter 1 and it's Sequel Virtua Fighter 2. Or Virtua Racing to Sega Super GT/SCUD Race


Virtua Racing (1992)


TO

Sega Super GT/SCUD Race (1996)


Little Less than FOUR years apart!!!

[retrospiel]

I was mighty impressed with Virtua Fighter 1 on Saturn.

[kokujin]

When Half Life 2 came out that game looked too good, same with crysis.For the most memorable leap was seeing the Virtua Fighter 3 for the first time.It looked so good, I didn't think graphics could get any better.The biggest jump in gameplay for me has to be Mario 64.

[kool kitty89]

What would be your biggest graphics jumpand game play. I would say the nes to sega look at this






Well to me that has been the most amazing evolution in games so far. I know games look amazing now but it is not leaps or bounds compared to the nes to sega jump. I am glad I lived through that and really was an amazing time to game.

Hmm, that's not a very fair comparison... early generation last gen title vs mid/late generation next gen game...

If you want to see an exact counterpart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YYIPn_06Uo

Hmm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHAK5DDNF3k





But really, there's rather few examples of such leaps without a good deal of intermittent steps, both in hardware and software: from pushing the capabilities to the max to late/early entries to each generation. You had the Pong/dedicated consoles, Channel F, RCA Studio 2, VCS, Astrocade, then the Intellivision followed by the Colecovision, 5200, Famicom and SG-1000, 7800, Mk.III/SMS, then the PC Engine, Mega Drive, SNES, Sega CD, 3DO, Jaguar, CD-32, Saturn, PSX, N64, Dreamcast, PS2, etc, etc.

And that's not addressing home computers or the Arcade.... you have the Apple II, Atari 8-bit, BBC Micro, VIC-20, PC-8801, TI99/4A, CGA PC, C64, ZX-Spectrum, CPC, Tandy 1000 and PC Jr, ST, Amiga, EGA PC, X68000, FM Towns, VGA PC games, then finally the start of hardware accelerated 3D on the PC in 1995 with the Rage, Edge (NV-1), and Stealth 3D (S3 ViRGE) chipsets followed by the Voodoo in 1996, though all the while you also had software rendering pushing more and more for both DOS and Windows games. You even had a few late games that didn't offer any acceleration like Outcast due to the renderer needing flexibility that GPUs of the time didn't offer. (and it wasn't until 3D coming on the scene that PCs really got good at 2D stuff as well)

In the case of 3D arcade games you had the 1988 Hard Drivin' board (also used for Race Drivin', STUNN Runner, Steel Talons, etc), Namco's System 21, Sega's model 1, Namco's System 22, Sega's model 2, Midway V, Sega's Model 3, etc.

[Guntz]

No, you ALL are wrong. THIS is the biggest jump in graphics. Screen resolutions are 100% accurate too:

[j_factor]

Biggest jump in graphics (from one generation to the next) was GBC to GBA. Few GBC games are not downright ugly.

[kool kitty89]

Biggest jump in graphics (from one generation to the next) was GBC to GBA. Few GBC games are not downright ugly.

What about the Game Gear and Lynx? (actually both are a full decade older than the GBA)
From what the OP implied, comparing cross-platform stuff was fine. If we were talking purely one manufacturer's console/arcade/computer system to the next, that's a different matter. (though Sega's existence alone made gaps smaller due to the sheer number of systems released) In that sense though, the 7800 to Jaguar might be the biggest jump. (but in that case they skipped a generation due to the cancellation of the ST based game system and then the Panther -unless you count Atari Corp's computers)

No, you ALL are wrong. THIS is the biggest jump in graphics. Screen resolutions are 100% accurate too:

Actually that's not correct, PONG would not have run at that resolution: not positive about the horizontal (probably 160 pixels using a 3.58 MHz dot clock) but vertical would be much lower than that, definitely under 224 lines, probably more like 192 to avoid overscan on TVs of the time...
Of course that would have to be scaled to show the correct aspect ratio on a square pixel PC display: same for almost any non-HD console games though. (albeit some were designed to be square pixel and thus ended up stretched/distorted on normal TVs, especially in PAL for NES/SMS and 256 wide MD games, 320 wide stuff isn't so bad depending on the dot clock used: especially for 7.16 MHz stuff like the PCE and Amiga used which would be closer to square in PAL than NTSC -MD's 6.71 MHz is pretty much in between so pixels are about 10% too tall in NTSC and 10% too wide in PAL -though any game specifically compensating for NTSC at any resolution would look equally squished vertically in PAL 50 Hz)

[Lastcallhall]

That EWJ pirate actually looks playable. I'll have to give it a shot.

[Macabre]

Does this include arcade systems? The Neo Geo arcade unit & home consoles were out at the same time most of the sega & nintendo 16-bit war was going on, and...well... Its hard to compare even Earthworm Jim to Metal Slug. Its color pallet was so great, and it literally was a 32 bit system in the 16 bit era.


Thats just being honest.


And also being honest is saying that the Metal Slug series is the only neo geo game that I liked, and that I think those Neo Geo fanboys need to calm down. SEGA ftw.


Evolution occurred to me when I went from Hard Driven on my genesis to Wipe Out on my saturn (a better port of a ps1 / arcade game).

[j_factor]

What about the Game Gear and Lynx? (actually both are a full decade older than the GBA)

I wasn't being 100% serious. But since we're on the subject, I do think the GBA was a rather large leap over previous handhelds. Although I'm not sure if I'd place NGPC and WonderSwan Color in the same generation as GBA or GBC. If the latter, the leap isn't as vast.

[retrospiel]

If you want to see an exact counterpart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YYIPn_06Uo

*stops watching at ~1:00* - hahaha, looks like it even plays like the original!!

[sheath]

For me the "biggest jump" would be when a new console launched and really showed game graphics *and* gameplay that wasn't possible on the (popular) stuff currently available.

With that model in mind. I thought the jump to the 2600 to the NES was big. I played Arcade games for the first time in 1988 though, and then thought the SMS was equally more impressive because of its available games (and the 3D glasses).

From there, the Genesis was the next big leap. The Toys R' Us I frequented had a kiosk with Altered Beast, and I had already seen the Gamepro comparison. With that, and the promise of Revenge of Shinobi and Golden Axe I was sold.

From there things get fuzzy for me. Because I don't see the switch to 3D as a jump, I don't see the Saturn, Playstation, N64 or PC's move to the same as a jump. In fact, *every game* I played in this generation had easily observable flaws/limitations, whereas I had to look for the flaws in top notch 16-bit games.

So, the first time I really saw 3D spark my imagination for what was coming was with Tomb Raider and Mario 64. The Dreamcast though was the first time I saw these ideas start to really strut their gaming potential. Games with the speed and precision required by Powerstone and Sonic Adventure simply weren't attempted on older hardware or PCs. I consider this jump every bit as significant as the jump from SMS/NES games to the Genesis.

I was working for a gamestore at the time the Xbox 360 launched. I remember spending *years* trying to educate customers to the various cable connections required to view their PS2 or Xbox in optimal quality on common sets. The store didn't have an HDTV when the XBOX launched, and needless to say the 360 version of Tomb Raider whatever didn't look that much better than the Xbox game. We had to switch back and forth, and generally only thought the differences were in color choices and far background detail.

I have since moved on and purchased an HD capable Rear Projection Set. The differences in the early HD era games are mostly a matter of AV clarity that I can appreciate. I just wouldn't call it a generational jump, hence the slow adoption for this generation and mass market preference of the Wii.

[sheath]

No, you ALL are wrong. THIS is the biggest jump in graphics. Screen resolutions are 100% accurate too:

Guntz, I don't get it. Is that small screen on the bottom left of the FPS pic supposed to be pong? Is there an FPS that lets me play pong at the same time!!?

[kool kitty89]

I wasn't being 100% serious. But since we're on the subject, I do think the GBA was a rather large leap over previous handhelds. Although I'm not sure if I'd place NGPC and WonderSwan Color in the same generation as GBA or GBC. If the latter, the leap isn't as vast.

The Wonderswan and NGPC aren't big leaps over the GG and Lynx, if at all in some respects. (wonderswan has the biggest advantage with on-screen color) And that's in the context of the Lynx and GG not even getting successors. (and by and large they likely could have had they stayed on the market longer, especially the GG and possibly before the GBC even came out -the most direct route would be a double clocked CPU -or more- and doubled VDP perhaps with added flexibility over the System E arcade board, and sound should have been fairly straightforward)

For me the "biggest jump" would be when a new console launched and really showed game graphics *and* gameplay that wasn't possible on the (popular) stuff currently available.

With that model in mind. I thought the jump to the 2600 to the NES was big. I played Arcade games for the first time in 1988 though, and then thought the SMS was equally more impressive because of its available games (and the 3D glasses).

OK, so you're ignoring the arcades AND home computers (ie the massively popular C64) while also limiting it to the perspective of your region.

In the grand scheme you had the massively popular 2600 then the Intellivision, Colecovision, and 5200 being quite significant though only the Intellivision surviving the crash. (if you're going to include the SMS in the US, you'd need to include those as well as they competed more strongly against the 2600 than the SMS or 7800 did)
The SMS, NES, and 7800 had their nationwide markets all in 1986 with the NES in September, the SMS in June, and the 7800 in January -unless you go by test markets the 7800 was released in late spring of 1984 while the NES came in fall of 1985. So the SMS would have been available nationwide months before the NES and the 7800 months before that and the NES, 7800, and SMS got equal market/media attention for the first year on the market, it was anybody's race as far as they were concerned and the market was still recovering in some parts of the US. (you could go by Japan where the Famicom was 2 years older than the SMS, but that's not the context you claimed... and honestly the NES and SMS launching in the US is not unlike the NES and SG-1000 launching in Japan simultaneously with the SMS's hardware more or less 2 years old -arguably 4 years old)

From there, the Genesis was the next big leap. The Toys R' Us I frequented had a kiosk with Altered Beast, and I had already seen the Gamepro comparison. With that, and the promise of Revenge of Shinobi and Golden Axe I was sold.

Again, you're ignoring computers? And was the Genesis that huge of a leap from late Master System games?

From there things get fuzzy for me. Because I don't see the switch to 3D as a jump, I don't see the Saturn, Playstation, N64 or PC's move to the same as a jump. In fact, *every game* I played in this generation had easily observable flaws/limitations, whereas I had to look for the flaws in top notch 16-bit games.

That and the fact that 3D had been getting ever more popular from the early 80s onward on both consoles and computers (especially if you include pseudo 3D stuff). In terms of pure polygons even that was true, though it really hit the main stream around 1991-93 alongside the popular ray-casting engines also being used and grew at a feverish pace. (it really started to get big in the arcade in about 1989/1990 and there were a significant number of 3D PC/Amiga/ST and some 8-bit computer games at that time too, and several which got ports to the Genesis)

So, the first time I really saw 3D spark my imagination for what was coming was with Tomb Raider and Mario 64. The Dreamcast though was the first time I saw these ideas start to really strut their gaming potential. Games with the speed and precision required by Powerstone and Sonic Adventure simply weren't attempted on older hardware or PCs. I consider this jump every bit as significant as the jump from SMS/NES games to the Genesis.

What about Shadow Squadron or various other 90s PC/console space sims? 3D space combat sims (along with flight sims) were one of the first games to really push head first into polygons and one of the first to really benefit from it, though also one of the first genres to really push for the 3D perspective in general, possibly the first to do so on a home console in general. (Star Ship was a launch title for the 1977 release of the VCS)
And it's interesting to note that the significance/dominance of that genre waned after 3D got good enough to really look impressive and perform well in other genres. (space shooters in the late 80s to mid 90s is what FPSs are on the PC today -or for pretty much the last decade)

I was working for a gamestore at the time the Xbox 360 launched. I remember spending *years* trying to educate customers to the various cable connections required to view their PS2 or Xbox in optimal quality on common sets. The store didn't have an HDTV when the XBOX launched, and needless to say the 360 version of Tomb Raider whatever didn't look that much better than the Xbox game. We had to switch back and forth, and generally only thought the differences were in color choices and far background detail.

That's because the game was not performing as well as it could have at that resolution: if the 360 didn't simply downscale a higher res image, but actually had variable renderign options like a PC, games would look far better than the do on SDTV (as detail and/or framerate could be improved over HD resolutions -better antialiasing, higher polygon count, etc, etc).
Really a shame they don't give users the options for manual detail settings. (obviously you'd at least want 480p, but there could definitely be cases where 480p at a solid 60 FPS and maxed out detail would be preferable to 720p at lower detail and peaking at 30 FPS -or 720p instead of 1080p rendering as well)
Hardware wise the wii shouldn't have any trouble managing 720p or higher... (same for Xbox, GC, PS2, DC, etc) I mean mid/late 90s games managed better than that, but all its games are optimized for 480p (and then interlaced) while having far greater detail than any games you would have seen on a PC back in 1997. (and there were DOS games running at pretty much the same resolution that most Xbox, DC, GC, and Wii games run at back in 1994, but in lower color depth and orders of magnitude less detail)

I have since moved on and purchased an HD capable Rear Projection Set. The differences in the early HD era games are mostly a matter of AV clarity that I can appreciate. I just wouldn't call it a generational jump, hence the slow adoption for this generation and mass market preference of the Wii.

Even with poor SD/ED optimization and lack of PC-like graphics flexibility, I still saw the difference almost immediately with the exception of sloppy multiplatform released very early in the generation. (back in 2006 at Target I could see a significant difference from Xbox, PS2, and GC games I'd seen on all the 360 games displayed though less of a difference compared to some games I'd played on my Athlon XP Radion 9600 PC -and indeed I could play some of the early generation PC ports of such games at the time too, and if I dropped to 640x480 I could generally match the detail level of the HD console games -though I generally tried to push 1024x768 at which point things tended to chug -that happened with Blazing Angles and I don't think my laptop would be a whole lot better -CPU is way more powerful but not so much for the embedded graphics)

Honestly it wasn't much different from the jump from late N64 and PSX games to PS2 and Dreamcast games, albeit there was no jump at all if you included PCs and from the mid 90s onward PCs were a buffer between formal generations: with average gaming PCs well behind the curve of the best new consoles but well ahead of the curve by the time those consoles are more than 1/2 way through the generation. (ie by 1997/98 PCs were well ahead of contemporary consoles in most respects) Prior to the mid 90s there were some pretty massive trade-offs as PCs weren't particularly strong at 2D and even though 2D accelerators (for windows mainly) were becoming common, I don't think any games used hardware acceleration prior to the mid 90s with 3D stuff.