I doubt fans realise how small the difference between this gen and last gen.

Welcome to the seventh generation.

The generation wherewidescreen is standard.

The generation where the game industry gets more attention.

But....

Is it worthy of the next-gen title?

Remeber when we went from this:

to this:

Or when we went from this:

to this:

That is quite a big jump.

But what about now?

Why did we went from that to this:

Or from this:

to this:

Or from this:

To this:

The difference is just so small.

Where is teh next-gen!?!

Um...did you just say that there's minimal graphical differences between Final Fantasy 12 and 13?

Is this your way of justifying the Wii's graphics?

Um...did you just say that there's minimal graphical differences between Final Fantasy 12 and 13?

Is this your way of justifying the Wii's graphics?

dracula_16

No. There IS minimal differene between Final Fantasy 12 and 13.

Sure, it's sharper and a really high resolution, allowing for extremely big textures, but when you put them together on an actual television in real-time, it looks just a little but better.

And this has nothing to do with the Wii.

Please use real pictures of Rogue Squadron 2. I hate it when people use the touched up media shots because the game looks great even without using those. Rogue Squadron 2 GC Ibacai

That is 480i.

The game does look like the one I posted in 480p. If you had a component cable for the Gamecube, which few people had in 2001 thanks to Nintendo's poor planning, but it does look like that and in 60 fps.

Play the 360 or PS3 on a HD television. You can get a much better prospective then.

Here's an idea....look at GRAW for the PS2 and then for the 360 and see if you can't tell the difference......this is probably one of the biggest graphical upgrades in the history of gaming!!! :|snorlaxmaster

post screens of both

That is 480i.The game does look like the one I posted in 480p. If you had a component cable for the Gamecube, which few people had in 2001 thanks to Nintendo's poor planning, but it does look like that and in 60 fps.Willy105

Welcome to the seventh generation.

The generation wherewidescreen is standard.

The generation where the game industry gets more attention.

But....

Is it worthy of the next-gen title?

Remeber when we went from this:

to this:

Or when we went from this:

to this:

That is quite a big jump.

But what about now?

Why did we went from that to this:

Or from this:

to this:

Or from this:

To this:

The difference is just so small.

Where is teh next-gen!?!

Willy105

Please use real pictures of Rogue Squadron 2. I hate it when people use the touched up media shots because the game looks great even without using those. Rogue Squadron 2 GC Ibacai

The picture in the OP is of Rogue Squadron 3 and the game really does look like that when displayed in 480p.

If you want to see significant technical improvements over RS3 do not show Warhawk, you need video of LAIR.

Funny how you didn't include NES to SNES, because the difference was also marginal.

But I agree, I have been unimpressed with this gen so far. AI hasn't improved much, and "multiple characters" on screen suck because they are all the same anyways.

The difference is becausing you're ignoring the HDness of it. Find full sized screen of those ps3 games and stretch those ps2 screens to the the same size and you'll see a difference

Edit:

I'll do one for you, still look the same?

If the only thing you consider when determining "next-gen" is graphics, then I guess your point is valid. But that's not the only thing that should be considered.ColoradoKindBud

Agreed. The things he isn't seeing are the improvements in AI, sound quality, speed (fps), control, gameplay, size and amount of content in this next-gen games.

[QUOTE="Willy105"]That is 480i.The game does look like the one I posted in 480p. If you had a component cable for the Gamecube, which few people had in 2001 thanks to Nintendo's poor planning, but it does look like that and in 60 fps.Ibacai

It looks like that on my TV in 480p. What's wrong with yours?

The difference is becausing you're ignoring the HDness of it. Find full sized screen of those ps3 games and stretch those ps2 screens to the the same size and you'll see a difference

Edit:

I'll do one for you, still look the same?

munu9

...such pwnage

seriously though TC one huge flaw in your thinking is that you're focusing on early next gen games (still flopping in ur pointas these games look awesome like kameo)

Look at gears of war compared to halo 2.lookat uncharted, Resident evil5.

Compare Mass Effect to KOTOR. Compare Bioshock to System Shock. Compare Halo 3 to Halo: Combat Evolved.zombiepigeon

[QUOTE="Willy105"]That is 480i.The game does look like the one I posted in 480p. If you had a component cable for the Gamecube, which few people had in 2001 thanks to Nintendo's poor planning, but it does look like that and in 60 fps.Ibacai

after playing rogue squadron 2 for the last few years or so and completely beating every level i must say it looks closer to the first pic than the one you posted. the game is gorgeous and still wows me today. The pic you posted looks like it was compressed and then expanded. the game does not look that fuzzy at all. btw i play the game in a ~40 inch sdtv.

[QUOTE="zombiepigeon"]Compare Mass Effect to KOTOR. Compare Bioshock to System Shock. Compare Halo 3 to Halo: Combat Evolved.ithilgore2006

kotor 2 looked like A$$

halo 2 looked like cool...but compare that to gears

[QUOTE="Ibacai"][QUOTE="Willy105"]That is 480i.The game does look like the one I posted in 480p. If you had a component cable for the Gamecube, which few people had in 2001 thanks to Nintendo's poor planning, but it does look like that and in 60 fps.genfactor

It looks like that on my TV in 480p. What's wrong with yours?

thats what i said. rogue squadron really does look that good.

[QUOTE="genfactor"]

[QUOTE="Ibacai"][QUOTE="Willy105"]That is 480i.The game does look like the one I posted in 480p. If you had a component cable for the Gamecube, which few people had in 2001 thanks to Nintendo's poor planning, but it does look like that and in 60 fps.amtentori

It looks like that on my TV in 480p. What's wrong with yours?

thats what i said. rogue squadron really does look that good.

I don't understand what point the OP is trying to make here.Teufelhuhn

He's saying this gen sucks.

I don't understand what point the OP is trying to make here.Teufelhuhn

I disagree.

Sure the diff. is not as big when you post THE BEST games from last gen compared to downscaled images that aren't even captured from an HDTV (which makes a BIG BIG difference) of early PS3 games.

Heres a better comparison:

GT3 (first GT game on PS2).

GT5 (first GT game on PS3). Right Click. View image.

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

Um...did you just say that there's minimal graphical differences between Final Fantasy 12 and 13?

Is this your way of justifying the Wii's graphics?

Willy105

No. There IS minimal differene between Final Fantasy 12 and 13.

Sure, it's sharper and a really high resolution, allowing for extremely big textures, but when you put them together on an actual television in real-time, it looks just a little but better.

And this has nothing to do with the Wii.

And you have done this? FFXIII doesn't even come out for a year or more.

ERm , whats your point? You showed N64 Star Wars, then GC Star wars. .... said that was a fine jump....

Then you put FF12 with FF13 ... and complain its a small jump ... when its bigger than your star wars comparison O_o or as big at least.

I see alot of graphical diffrences this gen but its not just graphics that are changing it also includes physicsshaggyaz

And animations and the scope and size of games and audio and AI etc. etc.

to the posters who comapared the rachet & clank and GT screens, who are you kidding? You chose the absoulte worst last gen shots of those games versus the best shots of the current gen counterparts. TC did a very fair comparison, and his point is clear. There is very little functional difference between last gen in this gen (minus the wii).

AI, physics, level size? All the same as last gen. Maybe in future that will change, but as of right now, you're blowing it out of proportion. This ignorance is especially bad when people talk about the physics in little big planet. Not that amazing, sorry. The game is 2d, and a last gen console could handle the physics, and i've seen plenty of videos of it. The wii is basically last gen horsepower and elebits hasslightly inferiorphysics but in 3d

Hontestly graphic whores, you disgust me.gamer0100

:lol: WHere did this comment come from? Uncalled for much?

Everything seems so familiar this gen, everything is just more of the same; the Wii is guilty of this too. If it were not for the DS I would of given up on games by now, my home consoles certainly see little use.

There is very little functional difference between last gen in this gen (minus the wii).GunSmith1_basic

And there is the absolute truth, the word functional makes the world of difference. Most of the changes this gen are purely aesthetic, regardless of what developers say about better AI, Physics and so forth. When technology can eradicate recurrent problems such as slowdown will I fall for the horsepower argument, as it stands gaming is like an RPG- your strength in relation to the enemies never really changes. You start off weak, but your enemies are also weak. As you level-up so too do your enemies. The change is a facade.

to the posters who comapared the rachet & clank and GT screens, who are you kidding? You chose the absoulte worst last gen shots of those games versus the best shots of the current gen counterparts. TC did a very fair comparison, and his point is clear. There is very little functional difference between last gen in this gen (minus the wii).

AI, physics, level size? All the same as last gen. Maybe in future that will change, but as of right now, you're blowing it out of proportion. This ignorance is especially bad when people talk about the physics in little big planet. Not that amazing, sorry. The game is 2d, and a last gen console could handle the physics, and i've seen plenty of videos of it. The wii is basically last gen horsepower and elebits hasslightly inferiorphysics but in 3d

GunSmith1_basic

I did not choose the worst pic. I chose a good one actually.

I think you are just biased. The TC posted pics that weren't even in the next gen games NATIVE RESOLUTION! You call that fair?

You sheep are something else I tell ya.

And if you think this gen. wont be exponentially better than last gen in the ways you explained, you are in denial or you are truly ignorant. Look at PS2 launch games VS Late PS1 games they look not that much better, but as time went on PS2 games became ALOT more sophisticated and detailed.

Hell look at PS2s launch games vs PS2s later games and tell me there isn't a BIG difference.

[QUOTE="GunSmith1_basic"]

to the posters who comapared the rachet & clank and GT screens, who are you kidding? You chose the absoulte worst last gen shots of those games versus the best shots of the current gen counterparts. TC did a very fair comparison, and his point is clear. There is very little functional difference between last gen in this gen (minus the wii).

AI, physics, level size? All the same as last gen. Maybe in future that will change, but as of right now, you're blowing it out of proportion. This ignorance is especially bad when people talk about the physics in little big planet. Not that amazing, sorry. The game is 2d, and a last gen console could handle the physics, and i've seen plenty of videos of it. The wii is basically last gen horsepower and elebits hasslightly inferiorphysics but in 3d

Trading_Zoner

I did not choose the worst pic. I chose a good one actually.

I think you are just biased. The TC posted pics that weren't even in the next gen games NATIVE RESOLUTION! You call that fair?

You sheep are something else I tell ya.

And if you think this gen. wont be exponentially better than last gen in the ways you explained, you are in denial or you are truly ignorant. Look at PS2 launch games VS Late PS1 games they look not that much better, but as time went on PS2 games became ALOT more sophisticated and detailed.

Hell look at PS2s launch games vs PS2s later games and tell me there isn't a BIG difference.

So is this gen all about HD? The HD gen. Like I said, what is the functional difference between last gen and this gen? Someone remarked that NES to SNES wasn't thatbig a deal, but the extra power of the SNES meant that whole genres were being redefined, which I especially noticed in fighters and rpgs. It is early mind you, but it looks like genres this gen are going to be roughly the same as last gen, but of course in HD with improved visuals I guess.