In 1995 this was the pinnacle of graphics...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkEVKzZNQDY

Shows how far we have come....

looks awesome for being made back in 95.

Yeah, hard to believe how far we've come in such a short time. Still, that tech demo is rather impressive even now. Kinda crazy, really. Wouldn't expect something from back then to hold up well at all.

Amazing what you could do on the PS1 when you only had to render one thing. :P

Here's a PS2 tech demo if any of you guys are interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIyu4Aozwbw

Tech demo looks better.

N64 tech demos were better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKlbx5niBu8

Both consoles were blown away from arcade tech though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGLtfq7xrx0

Looks better than some games today..Elann2008

It's one model on a black background, people. It's not impressive, and it's certainly not comparable to today's (or even last gen's) games.

Ah i remember that one :) still have the tech demo here. But from an other ps demo.

That's not representative of games from 1995 at all. It's a tech demo with only one object. No game back then looked even close to that.

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]Looks better than some games today..ReddestSkies

It's one model on a black background, people. It's not impressive, and it's certainly not comparable to today's (or even last gen's) games.

I disagree.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]Looks better than some games today..TGM_basic

It's one model on a black background, people. It's not impressive, and it's certainly not comparable to today's (or even last gen's) games.

I disagree.

Then you have no idea about what your 360 or PS3 could do if a company tried its hardest to make just one hyper-detailed model on a black background on it.

For 1995 those graphics are awesome.

For 1995 those graphics are awesome.

Demonjoe93

Wolfenstein 1993

Doom 1995

Terminator future shock 1995

:Shock: I guess bethesda had graphic skills even back then, i wonder what would happen if they made a linear fps today.

Duke nukem 3D 1996

Quake 2 1997

Half life 1998

Unreal tournament 1999

Deus ex 2000

Red faction 2001

Soldier of fortune 2 2002

Unreal tournament 2003

Doom 3 2004

Far cry 2004

Condemned 2005

Quake 5 2005

Prey 2006

Call of duty 4

Crysis 2007

Far cry 2 2008

Arma 2

Killzone 2 2009

Metro 2033 2010

2011? Either crysis 2 or brink or rage. We will see. Needless to say all look inferior. I cant wait for the next gen of consoles to push up the graphics standards and be amazed again.

dakan45

You got the Wolfenstein 3D and Doom dates wrong. Wolfenstein 3D came out in 1992 while Doom came out in 1993. Also you left out Quake 1 & 3 and Unreal 1. And Deus Ex was hardly graphically impressive.

[QUOTE="dakan45"]

nameless12345

You got the Wolfenstein 3D and Doom dates wrong. Wolfenstein 3D came out in 1992 while Doom came out in 1993. Also you left out Quake 1 & 3 and Unreal 1. And Deus Ex was hardly graphically impressive.

Amazing what you could do on the PS1 when you only had to render one thing. :P

Here's a PS2 tech demo if any of you guys are interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIyu4Aozwbw

Teufelhuhn

This was actually one of the demos that was on the sample disc that came with the Playstation 1 when you originally bought it brand new. The memories:) ...

Eh, it's impressive until you realize what's missing. Pretty misleading.

That's awesome since it was made in 95.

[QUOTE="TGM_basic"]

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

It's one model on a black background, people. It's not impressive, and it's certainly not comparable to today's (or even last gen's) games.

ReddestSkies

I disagree.

Then you have no idea about what your 360 or PS3 could do if a company tried its hardest to make just one hyper-detailed model on a black background on it.

No, I have an idea what they'd be capable of. Doesn't change the fact that it's still impressive.

That jump Doom 3 made is still ridiculous to me.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]That jump Doom 3 made is still ridiculous to me.gameguy6700

Except Doom 3 Alpha was leaked in 2002, two years prior the release of Far-Cry and H-L 2. Nothing came close to that Alpha leak in 2002 (perhaps only Spliter Cell and Resident Evil Remake but still not quite). And even when the game finaly came out in 2004 it was still technically above Far-Cry and H-L 2.

Battlefield 3 is clearly going to be the graphics king of 2011.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]That jump Doom 3 made is still ridiculous to me.nameless12345

Except Doom 3 Alpha was leaked in 2002, two years prior the release of Far-Cry and H-L 2. Nothing came close to that Alpha leak in 2002 (perhaps only Spliter Cell and Resident Evil Remake but still not quite). And even when the game finaly came out in 2004 it was still technically above Far-Cry and H-L 2.

Doom 3 had nothing on Far Cry and Half-Life 2 which were both progressive first-person shooters whereas Doom 3 was a reminder of times long forgotten. Even on a purely technical level, Doom 3 lags behind. Both Far Cry and Half-Life 2 feature expansive environments with numerous objects (with actual physics), characters and draw distances that would make the Doom 3 engine implode. Let's not even compare the art styIe of these three games.

Overall, Doom 3 was a testament of how completely out of the loop id was in regards to design, gameplay and technology. They're finally joining us in the modern age with Rage, but it's about a decade too late.

Overall, Doom 3 was a testament of how completely out of the loop id was in regards to design, gameplay and technology. They're finally joining us in the modern age with Rage, but it's about a decade too late.UpInFlames

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]Overall, Doom 3 was a testament of how completely out of the loop id was in regards to design, gameplay and technology. They're finally joining us in the modern age with Rage, but it's about a decade too late.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"] It becomes a lot less impressive when you realize that FarCry had already been out for five months when Doom 3 was released and that Half-Life 2 was released only three months later.UpInFlames

Except Doom 3 Alpha was leaked in 2002, two years prior the release of Far-Cry and H-L 2. Nothing came close to that Alpha leak in 2002 (perhaps only Spliter Cell and Resident Evil Remake but still not quite). And even when the game finaly came out in 2004 it was still technically above Far-Cry and H-L 2.

Doom 3 had nothing on Far Cry and Half-Life 2 which were both progressive first-person shooters whereas Doom 3 was a reminder of times long forgotten. Even on a purely technical level, Doom 3 lags behind. Both Far Cry and Half-Life 2 feature expansive environments with numerous objects (with actual physics), characters and draw distances that would make the Doom 3 engine implode. Let's not even compare the art styIe of these three games.

Overall, Doom 3 was a testament of how completely out of the loop id was in regards to design, gameplay and technology. They're finally joining us in the modern age with Rage, but it's about a decade too late.

What you're saying is simply your opinion and by no means a fact. The Doom 3 engine is capable of much more than you're saying. Infact id-Tech 5 that will debute in Rage is basically an upgraded version of the Doom 3 engine. And I suppose you never heard of Quake Wars which uses the upgraded Doom 3 engine and features expansive environments. The art-styIe in Doom 3 was also perfectly fine. If you like bright and open environments over dark metallic environments means jack. It's a fact that Far Cry and H-L 2 had nothing on Doom 3's shadow and lighting play. It was also one of the first games which was utilizing the GPU more than the CPU. And while FC and H-L 2 bet on diversity, Doom 3 was one of the scariest FPS games ever.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]Overall, Doom 3 was a testament of how completely out of the loop id was in regards to design, gameplay and technology. They're finally joining us in the modern age with Rage, but it's about a decade too late.foxhound_fox

You have to put it into perspective. Doom 3's lighting was impressive, but take into account that it had to render lighting and shadowing for only a few enemies and objects at any given time whereas both Far Cry and Half-Life 2 had much, much more to handle. And once Source implemented HDR, it wasn't even a contest.

As for your enjoyment of each game, that's a different matter altogether. I am hardly a big Far Cry fan myself, but its technical merits are obvious.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]Overall, Doom 3 was a testament of how completely out of the loop id was in regards to design, gameplay and technology. They're finally joining us in the modern age with Rage, but it's about a decade too late.UpInFlames

You have to put it into perspective. Doom 3's lighting was impressive, but take into account that it had to render lighting and shadowing for only a few enemies and objects at any given time whereas both Far Cry and Half-Life 2 had much, much more to handle. And once Source implemented HDR, it wasn't even a contest.

Doesn't really change anything about how the graphics looked like. Also HDR wasn't the next best thing after sliced bread. Because of HDR we got games that used excessive blooming.

What you're saying is simply your opinion and by no means a fact. The Doom 3 engine is capable of much more than you're saying. Infact id-Tech 5 that will debute in Rage is basically an upgraded version of the Doom 3 engine. And I suppose you never heard of Quake Wars which uses the upgraded Doom 3 engine and features expansive environments. The art-styIe in Doom 3 was also perfectly fine. If you like bright and open environments over dark metallic environments means jack. It's a fact that Far Cry and H-L 2 had nothing on Doom 3's shadow and lighting play. It was also one of the first games which was utilizing the GPU more than the CPU. And while FC and H-L 2 bet on diversity, Doom 3 was one of the scariest FPS games ever.nameless12345

Quake Wars was released three years later on a heavily modified engine. And it was still toned down to accommodate the large scale environments.

id Tech 5 is a new engine built from scratch.

Doesn't really change anything about how the graphics looked like. Also HDR wasn't the next best thing after sliced bread. Because of HDR we got games that used excessive blooming.nameless12345

I'm talking about technology, not just graphics. How HDR was used in other games is irrelevant.

id Tech 5 is a new engine built from scratch.

UpInFlames

I doubt it was. It looks very similar to id-Tech 4. It's not like they would just throw away the entire id-Tech 4 code and start anew.

I'm talking about technology, not just graphics. How HDR was used in other games is irrelevant.

UpInFlames

Well a lot of modern games still don't match Doom 3's lighting and shadowing. I think that says something.