I'm not saying that there wasn't an improvement, it just wasn't the massive leap from PSX -> PS2. I completely agree that the increased presentation helps with immersion, and that it was a jump. Just not as big a jump. (Seriously, I remember when I first popped Enchanted Arms into my new 360 on an HDTV, and being blown away at how nice everything looked, so I'm not dismissing it out of hand!)Kuruwin wrote:If you start to be so picky about then how was NES to SNES really improvement either? You can basically scale down almost any SNES game to NES so how was that any big leap in technology.
It's just bullshit to say that the leap from PS2 to PS3 didn't offer anything significant. What about lot more livelier open worlds? What about huge leap in facial animation and things like that. Things like that might not offer new gameplay ideas but they make everything lot more immersive and that's nothing to sniff at.
The SNES was very much similar to the jump from PSX -> PS2. While the NES could have handled some downports, they would have performed significantly more poorly (if at all) just because of the tech constraints. It (and the Genesis) got the systems to a level where they could pull off existing genres with much greater aplomb. That's the same thing the PS2 did. The PS3 further evolved that, but I'm simply arguing that the tech of the PS2 got gaming to a point where a lot of the stuff after gave diminishing returns.
(In simpler terms, I'm going to pull out BS numbers and say PS2 improved on PS1 by 100%, and PS3 over PS2 by 50%.)
Oh, as for the Uncharted example: It's certainly a pretty game, and I love it, but the gameplay contained therein has been done on PS2 before, in the form of the Tomb Raider reboots. Tomb Raider Legend, Anniversary, and the like. And you can throw in Prince of Persia as well. And those games aren't slouches in presentation, either.
