What were/will be the MOST and LEAST impressive generation changes when it comes to graphics?

[IntelliMission]

PS5 and the Xbox Series X are only a year away, but we already can imagine what the games will look like: Ray Tracing, no loading times, more resolution... Some even argue than this will be a real change compared to PS3/Xbox 360 > PS4/Xbox One, that they saw more as an upgrade.

 

I think they have a point: PS3/Xbox 360 games were much more detailed and sometimes 128 bits games could be ported to 32/64 bits consoles without much trouble. However, I think it would be interesting to see what atariagers think about this topic: When it comes to graphics, what is (or will be) the generation change that impressed you the most and what is/will be the one that you find (or suspect will be) less impressive?

 

Let's vote (and debate)!

[Magmavision2000]

For most impressive, I chose 16 bits to 32 bits. That was IMO the only noticeable evolution in gaming.

 

For least impressive, I chose 128 bits to ps3 360 generation. Graphically, games looked mostly the same. Some ps2 games looked like ps3 games and vice versa.

[bluejay]

16 bits to 32/64 bits definitely.

You suddenly got genuine polygon 3d games when you were playing 2d ones or fake 3d like Super Mario Kart.

[spacecadet]

Yeah most impressive has to be the 2D/3D change, which I guess corresponds to 16 bit to 32/64 in the poll. Ironically a lot of the early 3D games look *terrible* today while many 2D games still look fine, but at the time it was just a technical marvel seeing real 3D graphics at home. (Of course, there were arcade games doing 3D long before 32 bit home consoles, but to have that in the home was amazing.)

 

Least impressive I'd say was the previous gen to the current one, and I suspect we'll be getting diminishing returns from this point forward too. But for example, The Last of Us was available on both PS3 and PS4 - it looks different, yeah, but it's still pretty much the same game. Here's a screenshot comparison: https://gamingbolt.com/the-last-of-us-ps4-vs-ps3-screenshot-comparison-shows-major-graphics-overhaul

 

A lot of people were apparently really impressed by this difference at the time, and I'm not saying there's none, but compared with the jump from 2D to 3D or even 8 to 16 bit, it's a lot less noticeable.

[pablum]

I was most impressed by the jump to the 16-bit era. I really felt like I was playing arcade quality at home then.

 

I was not so much a fan of the 32/64-bit leap. I never liked how blocky early 3D models looked. Nor the "fog" that was introduced to hide draw distance in many games. I feel this way even about early 3D arcade games like Virtual Fighter 1. Just did not compare to 2D fighters at the time. There are some 32-bit era games I enjoy that are 3D, but its due to gameplay not graphics.

[Serguei2]

Most impressive 8 bits > 16 bits

 

Super Nintendo

Because the graphics look like IBM MCGA with 256 color.

 

Least impressive: First generation > 8 bits

Odyssey 2: poor graphics.

 

 

[Tanooki]

Seems I missed the boat on the old, made the average on the new.  The PS3 to PS4 jump just was not impressive when you looked at the higher grade quality pushed on the older hardware and then seeing the dying off current now and you wonder kind of at times was it worthy.  But I said 8-16bit.  I just didn't find 1st generation 3D very impressive at all on consoles, and I have them, but I'm spoiled by at the same time a DOS/Windows PC that could kick its ass in that respect so it just felt kind of terrible.  Gamecube PS2 era sure, that was notably nicer than the pre-3D stuff getting into smoother edges and looking details, or artsy like Wind Waker and Dragon's Lair 3D.  I Just think jumping from all what classified as 8bit to what you got with the 16bit SNES/Neo Geo/PC Engine was notably more impressive.

[Flojomojo]

I agree with @spacecadet, the switch to full frame, full texture, full speed 3D was dramatic and ushered in whole new genres and game styles. I was hungry for it and loved the innovation. I also agree that these games have aged poorly because many of them were more like tech demos than fun, and the imperfections and low resolution just look like butt now. 
 

Not sure if "128-bit" is the right term for the post-PlayStation generation, since the most powerful of PS2/Cube/Xbox/Dreamcast was the 32-bit Xbox. I would not mind if we never saw that phony progression again. And you thought you were avoiding nerd nitpicks by not using the Wikipedia "generations." Ha ha. 
 

The PS3/360 genres and tropes were pretty well established, and Xbone/PS4 are evolutionary, not revolutionary. I expect the new Xbox/ps5 to be the same way. For me, it's diminishing returns ever since the Xbox. 
 

I'm going to try to be a PC/mobile/Nintendo gamer for the next generation of consoles. I haven't gotten enough out of owning everything to justify doing it again. 

[DragonGrafx-16]

"Bits" are a stupid way to judge the "impressiveness" of graphics. It was marketing speak. It meant jack shit. What really mattered was how much RAM the GPU had or it's clock rate, or how strong the CPU was. There were 16bit PC games that were 3D that blew anything the PS1's 32bit. For example you can have a game that runs 16bit code but run it 4x as fast a game running on a system with 32bit code and therefore processes the same amount of code as a 64bit machine. The bits just determine how many characters each word is. 

[IntelliMission]

Thanks, DragonGrafix-16! I knew about that, but I decided to use the bits as everyone knows the generations like this.

 

And yes, PC games were awesome from 1989 to 1994 (notice how I avoid using "bits" now). For me, 286/386/486 are the best video game machines ever released, hugely superior in catalog to the consoles at the time and often unfairly forgotten in the official history of video games (check out this awesome graphic to compare the number of games released for each console/system since 1978).

 

As for my particular opinion in the matter and as much as I love MS-DOS games, I have to say PS1/Saturn/N64 was the biggest graphical update for me. This doesn't necessarily mean the games were better, but developers created huge hits during that generation. Yes, I am one of those freaks that appreciates pixelated 3D graphics... I even play Tomb Raider and Quake on 320x200.

 

The least impressive? Probably the last generation, but I have a feeling the new one will be even less noticeable.

[bluejay]

20 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Yeah most impressive has to be the 2D/3D change, which I guess corresponds to 16 bit to 32/64 in the poll. Ironically a lot of the early 3D games look *terrible* today while many 2D games still look fine.

Totally agree on this.

Super Mario World, Sonic the Hedgehog, and A Link to the Past(3 popular 16 bit games) all look pretty fine in today's standards, but Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time look absolutely TERRIBLE today.

Edited December 28, 2019 by bluejay

[IntelliMission]

One graphical leap that I believe we are underestimating is the very first one, the jump from the Pong machines to 8 bit consoles.

 

Sure, it was more than graphics: It was the first time there were interchangeable cartridges and the first time you could play against an AI-controlled opponent. But all those colors and sprites were not there before, and that must have been a huge at the time.

Edited December 28, 2019 by IntelliMission

[Tanooki]

Good point.  Up through those 70s into the 1983 era of both the Famicom(NES) and the almost as nice but still obvious jump Colecovision the stuff before hand looked pretty craptastic compared to their arcade cousins.  The ever larger and larger and less color options for big blocks and basic blips and boops.  Then the Coleco (US side) shows up in 83 and the NES in 85 and it was mindblowing quality in comparison with both the video/audio but what the games could pull off.  You not only finally had some arcade comparable nice bits of work done but the worlds even opened further due the steps things like SMB1 took.

 

Even on single screen stuff, comparing 2600 Ms Pac-Man to the NES/Tengen release of the game is pretty huge.  We kind of went into these 2 phases of gaming at home of ugly ass stuff that didn't age well to stuff that held up in the 2D space, then once more with the PS1/N64 stuff into then the PS2/Gamecube and forward.  Bad good, bad good since.  There hasn't been a revolution since in all those years, evolution sure, but until we get into true immersive touch it 3D like some Jetsons cartoon holo-tv or a full blown Star Trek Holodeck it just isn't happening.  Oculous and knockoff style 3D goggles are definitely not it.

[Shannon]

Best.. from Gamecube to Wii ( Gamecube 1.5 )....

Uhhhh I mean worse!

 

[IntelliMission]

Tanooki, while the consoles released in 83-85 had better looking games, I was referring to the "official" jump from the first generation (no interchangeable cartridges, pong machines) to what we know as the actual first consoles (2600, Intellivision). Sure, the graphics on those consoles don't look too good by today's standards (not so much for me, as my first video game system was an Amstrad CPC), but they are futuristic when we compare them to what was before them.

 

About new and future consoles, one of the problems that console manufacturers may have is that once video games start looking realistic, you can only improve minor things such as the lightning, the framerate, the number of enemies on screen... And in 10-20 years these changes would probably be less and less noticeable every time, so an expensive purchase of a new hardware would be more difficult to justify and they would have to offer revolutionary controls or gameplay experiences.

Edited December 29, 2019 by IntelliMission

[Mikebloke]

I said 8 to 16 bit for myself. Part of that is my age, and as a programmer my perception of change in that field. I see 8 bit and see its limitations. I see 16 bit and think of it as perfection of the 2D scene. I know the jump to 3D was extreme, but actually the early 3D stuff till ps1 and saturn was rubbish. Probably too subjective, but to some degree I do also accept 16 to 32 as being innovative. 

 

For least change, I wasn't sure what to put between the last two options, I don't have a latest gen console for example, as my laptop has (up until I just tried to play origins on it this steam sale) been perfectly fine for my gaming needs for the new games I wanted. Origins not working has been a wake up call, as my laptop is now a good 5-6 years old and might convince me to consider buying a ps4 or xbox one before the next gen comes out. I don't personally see a great deal of difference, and while it sucks I might not be able to play certain games out now, the advancement of twitch means I can generally get the feel of it without actually playing it. (Death Stranding, looking at you). 

[IntelliMission]

Another interesting aspect of how the jumps to "next gens" are not what they used to be:

 

- 8 to 16 bits: People wanted more colors and more memory to replicate the arcade experiences, so when the new consoles came out, the graphical update was very noticeable and welcome.

 

- 16 to 32/64 bits: Same story, but adding the jump to "proper" 3D with textures. Ridge Racer, Sega Rally, Tekken, Virtua Fighter... You could have these at home and this was huge at the time.

 

- 32/64 bits to 128 bits: Still, the 3D graphics were pixelated and couldn't replicate games such as Sega Rally correctly. 3D games were not pixelated/blurred on the arcades and not everyone could afford a PC with a 3Dfx card, so when the Dreamcast came out the impact was great. Video games finally looked "like real life" (even if this proved to be wrong a few years later).

 

- 128 bits to PS3/Xbox 360: This was the first time I didn't buy a new system. I became a retro player. I don't regret my decision, but in retrospective I can definitely see a big graphical leap. If we aim for realism, sceneries looked a bit empty and characters a bit too simple before this generation. However, not everyone was able to notice and Nintendo realized about this, refusing to compete in the graphical department arguing that graphics were not important anymore at this level. One thing that is true is that this graphical jump didn't bring us new gameplay mechanics.

 

- PS3/Xbox 360 to PS4/Xbox One: Clearly the less impressive. Better resolutions, better frame rates... but we're getting dangerously close to the point where generation leaps will not be noticeable (at least in screenshots).

 

- PS4/Xbox One to PS5/Xbox Series X: We'll have to wait and see, but using loading times or lighting as selling points means that you don't have a true revolution in your hands.

 

It's clear that the last 2 or 3 generation changes have failed to create the same hype. 20 years ago, buying a 32/64 bits machine was an experience similar to visiting a theme park. Nowadays, players just want to improve the reflections or the hair in the characters.