On significance of platform transition: PS1/PS2/PS3/PS4

[Jmustang1968]

Are we just speaking in general on the surface graphics here? Haven't had that quite cleared up.

[isiolia]

Are we just speaking in general on the surface gra0hics here? Haven't had that quite cleared up.

I think the original jumping off point for the discussion was focused mostly on graphics/processing muscle.

It's a discussion though, and I know several of us have mentioned online features or other paradigms.

[Jmustang1968]

If just screenshot comparisons, sure ps1 to ps2 is most obvious, mostly due to how primitive early 3d was. But computing power and features etc, different story.

[TSTR]

Haha, exactly. I forgot what we were even talking about in here.

[Sarge]

I was thinking in terms of gameplay quality as well. Many of the PS1/N64 games were pretty janky from not having the tech to execute the vision of the devs. You saw a lot of that clear up with the PS2/GC/XBOX.

No question that the PS3/360 generation really brought online gaming to the forefront of consoles. And there are tangible benefits to those platforms for multiplayer experiences (more players, larger maps, etc.). But I don't play much multiplayer, so that doesn't help me much, and as I've argued before, many of the gameplay types that were there with single-player PS3 games could translate well to PS2. I don't think that's necessarily true with a lot of PS2 games to the PS1.

The points about AI are good, too. The thing is, many games still have pretty bad AI. Sometimes it's just poorly coded, and sometimes it's because that's what it's supposed to be. After all, the tricky part is to have an AI that is challenging but still gives the player an advantage, and something that is brain-dead simple to beat. The whole goal of a game is to have the player win eventually, so there will always be a limit on how far they can push those routines and still have a game that is fun to play.

[Exhuminator]

Just because your personal choice is winning doesn't mean that you now have the high ground and experiencing those consoles first hand doesn't make you any more qualified if you are being just biased. If you think you are looking things objectively here then you are being completely delusional.

It's not just MY personal choice, it's the majority choice of voters in the poll. But I guess they're all just delusional too.

And for the record i didn't even say what's my pick is and you are just assuming that it's the PS2 to PS3.

Considering the contention you had about it in the other thread, it's an understandable assumption.

[Kuruwin]

No. It was all about you downplaying the significance of going from PS2 to PS3 not about which was the most significant leap.

[dsheinem]

i don't think you can reasonably argue that any of them is more "significant" than another when "significance" is nebulous. Thus, my choice of "equally significant"...albeit in different ways.

[dsheinem]

another way of thinking about it is to consider the question implied by the OP, which is specifically on graphics.

Here Sony argued the PS4 is 43 times as powerful as the PS2, and Extremetech.com called them to task while explicating differences across PS2-PS3-PS4: https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/1781 ... hertz-myth


This is worth watching on the question of graphics too, as it compares similar "flagship" titles:

[TSTR]

ain't none of it got that BLAST PROCESSING