Those Halo 1 screenshots are horrible... It must be those particular ones. Stuff like Soul Calibur or Shenmue on DC looked better despite being a bit older.

And about graphics...the leap isn' t as big as it used to be, going from one generation to a new one. Compare PS1 games with Soul Calibur at the DC launch for example. Then compare the later games from the past generation with the first new ones. The difference isn' t as big at all. Many people were even disappointed I recall in the beginning. Besides that, many developers themselves have made statements about the graphics. And they said that the difference isn' t nowhere as big as before.

And 50 times is a lot, the difference isn' t that big. Besides that, graphics can' t really be judged in a number since a big part of it is subjective. Good art design can make up for less advanced technology behind it. Or a technologically impressive game can look boring as hell.

The old farts will always try to defend legacy junk....

What does this have to do with " defending legacy junk" ? The leap isn' t as big and several developers themselves mentioned this and explained why in some interviews. I do think that they know a bit more about these matters than most gamers writing on forums in the end. Besides that, I have seen many people complaining about graphics shortly after the 360 was released since they all expected a massive difference from the start.

ORIGINAL: ys

And about graphics...the leap isn' t as big as it used to be, going from one generation to a new one. Compare PS1 games with Soul Calibur at the DC launch for example. Then compare the later games from the past generation with the first new ones.

VF2 (Saturn)



VF4 (PS2)



VF5 (PS3)



Which is the most impressive jump there?

PS2 to PS3 obviously.

AT most you can say they are about the same in terms of " jump" of power between generations. This generation isn' t any less impressive, you' re just fooling yourself.

Nothing will seem as big as SNES to N64 because of 2D to 3D is a big observable difference. But the technical difference is actually increasing exponentially. That' s Moore' s law.

The thing is, this gen is the first to go HD, so we' re seeing a performance hit just for that. We' re also seeing a lot of new effects that are expensive performance wise. A screenshot wouldn' t even do it justice. However if you take a HD screen, plug in your PS2 and play the nicest looking games in 640x480 and take your PS3 and play the nicest games in 1280x720, you' ll see a difference. It doesn' t matter if it' s 5 or 50 times better. The 360 and PS3 make PS2 and Xbox look like ass. I can' t even play anything before this gen. Thinking about last gen makes me want to vomit.

Even this gen is starting to show it' s age next to a high end PC.

ORIGINAL: Agent Ghost

Nothing will seem as big as SNES to N64 because of 2D to 3D is a big observable difference. But the technical difference is actually increasing exponentially. That' s Moore' s law.

The thing is, this gen is the first to go HD, so we' re seeing a performance hit just for that. We' re also seeing a lot of new effects that are expensive performance wise. A screenshot wouldn' t even do it justice. However if you take a HD screen, plug in your PS2 and play the nicest looking games in 640x480 and take your PS3 and play the nicest games in 1280x720, you' ll see a difference. It doesn' t matter if it' s 5 or 50 times better. The 360 and PS3 make PS2 and Xbox look like ass. I can' t even play anything before this gen. Thinking about last gen makes me want to vomit.

Even this gen is starting to show it' s age next to a high end PC.

The Resolution jump has been there before.

Most PS1 games were 320x240, most PS2 games 640x480, most current gen games 1280x720

So again it is nothing new, only ignorant people think this is the first time we' ve seen a resolution jump in consoles.

And resolution alone doesn' t make games look better, I' ve played Xbox360 on small plasma EDTVs and the game look just as good as they do running on large 720/1080 screens.

Higher resolution on TVs is mostly a tool so that we are able to use bigger screens without making the image look like crap, it doesn' t really make the game look any better.

Wii games look like shit because the graphics suck ass, not because of the resolution.

Do ALL graphics on the Wii suck ass? I' m just curious, and I ask because I' m sure that you know the answer. There is no such thing as opinion.

I was joking Marink! The pictured game though, is the scariest game iv ever played

Oh, I thought you were just taking the piss. I hate it when people judge games on how they look graphically, though. Give me an N64 or Playstation anyday.

Which is the most impressive jump there?

PS2 to PS3 obviously.

At most you can say they are about the same in terms of " jump" of power between generations. This generation isn' t any less impressive, you' re just fooling yourself.

I can' t really tell actually and I only told what developers themselves said. All I know is that VF4 Evo looks much better on my screen than how the screenshot looks. Anyway, it doesn' t matter, it' s just a personal opinion about a subjective matter. I myself for example don' t even like the " plastic" look of VF5, due to the overly popular shaders in many games these days. The game looks very good but that particular thing sometimes bothers me. Objects get an unrealistic shiny look which goes a bit against their quest for realistic graphics. Normal jeans for example can look shiny as if quicksilver has been poured over it. In the end, I don' t really care. If it' s a good game I' ll play it. I still play a lot of older games too as long as the gameplay is fun.

ORIGINAL: Joe Redifer

Do ALL graphics on the Wii suck ass? I' m just curious, and I ask because I' m sure that you know the answer. There is no such thing as opinion.

Yes. It' s just a gamecube.

But F-Zero GX has sweet-ass jawesome funky kick-butt grafx.

I can' t stop thinking about ninjas.

I can' t stop thinking about breasts.