Consoles that provide(d) the best performance increase from 1stgen to last gen titles

I disagree, PGR3 and Kameo were using 3 cores from day 1, and the myth of games running on one core is just like ps2 not using vector units.

Neither of those games were using 3 cores. Hell Gears of War was only running on one core until a few months before it's release.

There are only a couple 360 games that run on 3 cores and PGR3 and Kameo damn sure aren't one of them.

And most ps2 games didn't use the vector units until the ps2 was out for years.
 
Well i would say the C64 would easily make the top. But in this case it would the PS2, the E3 demoes became reality and then some and MGS2 was in realtime!

Agree on the C64. No other fixed-spec-hardware has come CLOSE to the improvements the C64 saw.
I would venture that some of the graphics modes the demoscene invented was far beyond what the original VIC design team thought possible for example.
Now, the C64 isn't really a console (unless you count the C64GS...), so perhaps this is a bit off topic.
 
Agree on the C64. No other fixed-spec-hardware has come CLOSE to the improvements the C64 saw.
I would venture that some of the graphics modes the demoscene invented was far beyond what the original VIC design team thought possible for example.
Now, the C64 isn't really a console (unless you count the C64GS...), so perhaps this is a bit off topic.

Really hard to make such comparisons now. The step from C64 to Amiga 500 was also pretty amazing. 12 Player online Motorstorm is also quite a bit above anything like it on PS2. And that's a game early in the consoles lifecycle, almost a launch-game. Etc.
 
Really hard to make such comparisons now. The step from C64 to Amiga 500 was also pretty amazing. 12 Player online Motorstorm is also quite a bit above anything like it on PS2. And that's a game early in the consoles lifecycle, almost a launch-game. Etc.

I may be misinterpriting your post (or the OP) but my understanding was, growth within the console generation on the same console. (from first gen titles on a console to the last of the AAA titles released on said console)
 
Really hard to make such comparisons now. The step from C64 to Amiga 500 was also pretty amazing. 12 Player online Motorstorm is also quite a bit above anything like it on PS2. And that's a game early in the consoles lifecycle, almost a launch-game. Etc.

Yeah, but that is talking about inter-console steps. This topic is about the improvements seen on the same hardware during its lifetime, no?
 
Yeah, but that is talking about inter-console steps. This topic is about the improvements seen on the same hardware during its lifetime, no?

Specifically what I was looking at was how much did a particular piece of hardware (ex: PS2) improve from 1st gen games to last gen games.
 
Xbox lasted for only 4 years but what's more developers were already familiar with x86 and NV2x architecture so there's no surprise that there's no such difference as in case of PS2.
 
Personaly I did not see that much of a gap between first and last gen titles on the XBOX. Even the difference between Halo1 and Halo2 did not seem like that great of a leap at all. If you compare that to the PS3 nicest looking lauch title SSX when compared to God of War 2 - NO COMPARISON!!!

Splinter Cell Chaos Theory compared to Halo.

I'd still agree Ps2 saw the biggest boost, but Xbox wasn't bad.
Gamecube barely saw any improvement.

BTW, anyone have some examples of the improvement the c64 saw? I'm not quite down on that scene. I'd imagine atari 2600 level graphics to apple 2 level maybe?
 
I'd say comparing PGR1 to PGR2 shows a huge improvement. Same goes for Splinter Cell 1 to Chaos Theory (an arguably even bigger jump). I also very much disagree with those that say that God of War 2 looks better than anything on Xbox. I played God of War 1 for ~ 20 hours and I saw it as the 3rd game (MGS2 & 3 being the others) that could be mistaken for a game that came out on the Xbox, though even in that case there were things that made it a very PS2'ish game (mostly lack of shader-based effects, specular, normal mapping). MGS2 was, at the time the best looking game I had ever seen, and I don't think that anything significantly surpassed it, with the possible exception of MGS3, though even then, the combination of an unsteady 30fps with 3 (? i think?) years of time passing didn't impress me nearly as much (I also think that it tried to do too much, and I liked the new-age industrial environment more in the first). But I digress.

I really believe it depends on which devs you look at. Even in the PS2's case, there are games that came out in year 2 (MGS2) that looked better than 95% of all games to come. And the PS2's case was special because at launch it had almost no dev tools, and most games lacked mipmapping, and used a half-height framebuffer. So without changing anything else, just improving on those 2 gave games a huge jump (GOW 1 I remember looked very clean because of that).
 
And the PS2's case was special because at launch it had almost no dev tools, and most games lacked mipmapping, and used a half-height framebuffer. So without changing anything else, just improving on those 2 gave games a huge jump (GOW 1 I remember looked very clean because of that).

QFT

Xbox1 had some great strides as well but when comparing to the launch games of ps2 which were hobbled severly, it is no contest.

Though beyond this point, ps2 devs did some unbelievable things with the hardware. Black and GoW were the two most notable IMO.
 
I think the last Xbox1 game, Conkor looked alot better than early Xbox games. But launch GameCube game looked better. IMO Factor 5 GameCube game Rebel Strike >= RE4 > Zelda TP. Also few years from now, Zelda WW will look better than TP. Its design is very timeless.
 
Also few years from now, Zelda WW will look better than TP. Its design is very timeless.

yep :D

It's funny this game was rejected the first time it was shown as cell shaded but will probably be one of the few games from this gen that will last visually, years from now. :cool:

TF2 should also be in that boat when it hits retail as well. Looks fantastic but not as varied and "colorful".
 
I think the last Xbox1 game, Conkor looked alot better than early Xbox games. But launch GameCube game looked better. IMO Factor 5 GameCube game Rebel Strike >= RE4 > Zelda TP. Also few years from now, Zelda WW will look better than TP. Its design is very timeless.

RE4 vs Rebel Strike is apples vs oranges. Rebel Strike's on-foot missions look horrible in comparison to even the worst of RE4's. And you can't exactly compare some in-flight stuff to RE4. Unless you want to hover and look close at the low level of surface detail actually on those Rebel Strike models. Heh. Maybe we should compare F-Zero GX to Rebel Strike? In that case, FZero runs a hell of a lot smoother and looks just as good IMO. And, IMO, it's also a lot more fun.

Gamecube didn't "advance" like Xbox and PS2 because its hardware was so incredibly efficient by comparison. Devs had it easy with Cube. It didn't have quirks or horrible memory issues like Xbox and PS2 (especially).

This "which console improved the most" contest could be used to show which console had the most technical challenges to overcome. PS2 wins that race by a mile.
 
On the other hand the DreamCast was one of the worst product to show a difference between first and last gen products (Soul Caliber always looked best to me and was a launch title)... same goes for XBOX1.

What?

Halo 1:

halo_tgs_screen001.jpg


halo_screen015.jpg


halo_screen010.jpg


Halo 2:

562116_20041105_screen039.jpg


562116_20040510_screen003.jpg


562116_20040510_screen001.jpg
 
Todd33 said:
PS2 games have never had mip-mapping as far as I know.
Not using mip-mapping on PS2 was the best way to destroy both performance and image quality of the game in one fell swoop. But yea, there were indeed people that thought it was an "optimization" back in the old days.
 
Not using mip-mapping on PS2 was the best way to destroy both performance and image quality of the game in one fell swoop. But yea, there were indeed people that thought it was an "optimization" back in the old days.

I read off of IGN's page on PS2 launch that "...and Summoner are some of the premiere launch titles...". Considering just how awful Summoner looked, the PS2 has made incredible strides (lets not jump into the gameplay aspect). No mipmapping 4.5 color palette (kidding, but really it was like 6 primary colors) low-res buffer (not sure exact res...was it half height or just 320*240?)

Oh yeah, not to meantion Silent Hill 3 which was phenomenal. GOW 2 looks incredible, as does Jax stuff, Ratchet & Clank stuff.
 
Many PS2 games render in a lower resolution and then just expand the image, adding no actual detail, to fill the screen. Even then, some don't quite make it all the way to 640x480.
 
Back
Top