When we look at the PS3 like we look at the ATARI 2600....

[RCBH928]

I don't think that is possible, because its already too advanced to look bad.

Like the movies, the first films captured are old technology. They are dirty looking, no color, and low frames per second making movement look fast. But when it was the 60's or the 70's , there was color and everything looks really good. It got so advanced that its hard to improve a lot more on it.

Thats the thing with gaming today, its too advanced to look old. I think we will never look back at 360/ps3 game and think "Thats awful! The graphics are so bad I can't play" , it might be not as good but its good enough. Just like how you can still watch Gone With the Wind and still enjoy it.

[GamerMON]

Duck tape 12,800 atari consoles together and maybe it will become a PS3 by magic.

Or you can just hot glue 500 SNESes together. (or 300 MegaDrives)

Or you could just do 125 Atari Jaguars. Due the math. Wait 500 SNESes would be way cheaper.

[Hatta]

The Atari 2600 is an all time classic. The PS3 is yet another 3d gaming system. In 100 years, the PS3 will be forgotten, but there will still be plenty of working Atari 2600s to go around.

[swiftzx]

Duck tape 12,800 atari consoles together and maybe it will become a PS3 by magic.

It's over 9000!

[Luke]

What I mean is, When the PS3 looks as bad to us as the Atari does today. what would we look at the Atari like if the PS3's graphics are considered ancient?

That's a matter of opinion. I have no problem whatsoever with 2600 graphics.

I'd still rather play Missile Command on the 2600 than most games in my 360 library.

[Troglodyte]

Actually, the lack of backwards PS2 compatibility draws comparisons to the Atari 5200, in my humble opinion. Hopefully we will someday see a new PS3 (or even PS4) with some forum of backwards compatibility (hopefully hardware, or at least improved software support). I'm not in the market for one right now, because I am not much of a Sony fan, but when I do finally purchase one; it is going to be one of the original released with PS2 backwards compatibility (hardware).

It's one thing to not offer any form of backwards support from the beginning, but its a whole 'nother thing to offer something and then needlessly steal it away. So in that respect, maybe it is even worse than what Atari decided to do when they designed the 5200.

[newt42]

What I mean is, When the PS3 looks as bad to us as the Atari does today. what would we look at the Atari like if the PS3's graphics are considered ancient?

It'll be when video games become bed-sized capsules you would lay down and lock yourself into, immersing yourself into an over realistic looking virtual reality video game. Kinda like the Matrix, but without all the human-robot genocide.

On a more serious note: Whenever a console generation begins, gamers start to think that this is as good as it's going to get; it can't possibly look any better than this. Then before we know it, another generation starts, introducing what we thought wasn't possible: better looking graphics. So if you think about it, it will probably take just as long as the 2600 did to look that outdated. About 25 years.

EDIT: Hopefully, the next console generation will be a while. I can't think of why Sony or Microsoft would wanna make another new console. Nintendo might decide to give it another go, but that's just one company. Considering that, it could take much longer than 25 years.

[Pulsar_t]

I'm of the 'school' that believes unless 3D has certain artistic merits it becomes dated quite quickly. This is why Reboot looks hideous compared to Toy Story. And this is why I wouldn't touch most 32/64-bit 3D games with a barge-pole. If designers wish their games to look timeless they can invest in a unique look that doesn't solely depend on the polygon pushing power of the consoles.



Which one do you think looks 'better'?

[J T]

I look forward to a future where we can play videogames just by taking a simple pill.

[Pulsar_t]

Non-obligatory Matrix reference