Evolution of Video Game Graphics: Graphics Kings, 1971-2013

Higher resolution assets don't mean much when you're limited to 30fps at 900p. If we want to go by pure asset fidelity then modded Skryim blows everything else away no competition. The limitation of the resolution combined withe lower frames reduces the overall picture quality compared to that of Crysis 3 running on a PC at recommended settings. Furthermore Ryse has smaller environments, though that could very well be a product of the game's design, not the limitations of the hardware.

With graphics king your looking at the best overall picture quality you can get, that has to combine both art and technical aspects of graphics. It is biased towards upgrade able platforms like the PC because of the limitations of hardware of a closed and fixed platform. If Ryse was on the PC it would probably look better than Crysis 3 at its best, but as it stands Ryse's best is still not as good as Crysis 3 at it's best.

Yes I have seen it, yes it is a fantastic looking game, no it's not the best looking game of last year. It's highly doubtful any console game will ever be awarded that again unless somebody breaks the mold and builds a console that is on par with the best PCs of the time.

The last console game to ever be crowned graphics king will be Gears of War. At the time the Xbox 360's unified shader GPU was ahead of anything on PCs. The next year the PC far suppressed the Xbox 360, but for those few months Gears of War was the best looking game. It's just not possible anymore for a $400-500 machine to do the graphics of $1000 GPUs. Even with the native advantage of having a low level API that gets more out of the hardware, the gap in power is too great for any sort of optimization to fully win.

Crysis 3 and even Battlefield 4 on ultra settings on the PC look better than Ryse at it's best. That's also why I'm not talking about Killzone Shadow Fall despite being 1080p and looking very good, when you play it there are a lot of unfortunately obvious cuts they had to make that hurt the final picture quality (mostly distant LoD models).

No it's not fair, but that's how it is.

Horrible list. :s FEAR 2 had pretty subpar graphics (it had really simple lighting) and I'm pretty sure there were better graphics in the 90s than a lot of those options.

Shattered Horizon came out into 2009 and looks much better than Fear 2.

Quake is probably the biggest omission as it was the first true 3d game.

It doesnt

Sure it does. SWs voted on it already epic fail you lose.

What sites gave Ryse "best graphics"?

links please?

My god, I've dumped so many hours into Space Harrier.... What a fun glance through the hobby. I used to play Punch out in the arcade all the time....

Go look up my other post. I'm not going to link again just for you.

lol @ the emotionally damaged herms and cows

___

I remember you starting this thread in the old legacy forums. I never did check back to see if you had finished though that one was crazy in-depth. Pretty fun looking at how far we've come.

@kingtito: Oh sw said it? It must the true then...

This was sarcasm btw

Oh, and you cant provide links to rose graphics awards cause you have none. Nice try lem

Actually, I wasn't referring to higher-resolution assets (I'm not sure if it does), but higher polygon counts for those assets. According to this chart, for example, Ryse has a higher character polygon count than Crysis 3. However, my main point was about the engine: Ryse uses a 4th-generation CryEngine, while Crysis 3 uses a 3rd-generation CryEngine. Ryse is the first game to demonstrate Crytek's next-gen CryEngine, but is obviously bottlenecked by the limited X1 hardware. In terms of resolution, picture fidelity, and texture details, your right that Ryse is no match for Crysis 3, because of the limited hardware. But the advantage Ryse has is that it's using a next-gen CryEngine, with a more advanced feature set, such as improved cinematic lighting & shading, as well as higher polygon counts for the characters. I'm not sure if you'd consider that to be an "art" advantage, but I'd consider that to be a technical advantage.

EDIT: By the way, I've now updated the OP to replace COD2 with FEAR for 2005.

What do you mean by "first true 3d game"?

Nice time line!

List was good until you got into the 90's.

Jesus christ, why the **** is Fear 2 even in that list?

Ryse? Really?!

Afaik, Quake was the first game that didnt use any 2d sprites.

Apparently OP doesn't grasp the concept and requirements for a "graphics king"...

It's supposed to be a technical marvel... And 20fps @900p sure as hell is not lol.

There were many games that did that before (including the ones I've posted), and even some FPS games that did it before. Quake was an important breakthrough for 3D FPS games though, like what Super Mario 64 was to 3D platformers.

By the way, I just checked out that Shattered Horizon game you mentioned before, and it definitely looks better than FEAR 2, so I've now updated the OP and replaced it with Shattered Horizon.

TC obviously not a fan of sony

Would you say the same about Avatar running in 720p @ 24 fps? I'd argue that Ryse's CGI-like cinematic lighting & shading and high polygon counts quite easily make up for it running in 900p @ 30 fps.

Actually, I've been a Sony fan since the PS1 era, and have always preferred them over Microsoft. But I've tried to be unbiased when making my list, so it might not seem like that.

It certainly doesnt look like that. Ryse isnt the 2013 graphics king. If anything Crysis 3 PC or Killzone SF are. Even the guy at DF said Killzone SF was the best looking next-gen launch title. 900p and 20fps is NOT being the best graphics by a LONG shot cause if you want to count cinematic feel and high polygon count than God of War 3 should have won 2010 (and it did on numerous websites)

More advanced effects don't make the game better looking by default. That's what im getting at. You're just giving it to Ryse for an arbitrary reason (and possibly to upset fanboys) despite the final image quality of Crysis 3 looking better.

@Jag85 said:

It's not really 4th gen, its 3.5. And when Crysis 3 was released it was around 3.4.

What games were completely 3d before Quake?

You mean this tweet? It doesn't look like that to me, but it looks more like he's uncertain. Either way, it looks to me that Ryse had the superior lighting, shading, and polygon counts, while Killzone SF (and of course Crysis 3) had higher resolutions, frame rates, and texture quality. In the end I gave it to Ryse, because it's experimenting with new kinds of lighting and shading techniques, in addition to the high polygon counts, making it feel like a technical breakthrough, achieving the look and motion of a pre-rendered CGI movie in real-time. Killzone SF and Crysis 3 feel like an evolution of what's come before, whereas Ryse has a new CGI kind of look to it. While many SW'ers may choose to focus on resolution and texture quality, I'd argue that the lighting and shading are equally important technical factors, at least to me.

Pretty much all the games I posted from 1988 onwards are fully 3D. Unless you mean 3D FPS games? In that case, I can think of two off the top of my head: Star Cruiser (1988) and Descent (1995). There's probably more than that as well.

First thing I thought too lol

a disagreement on system wars and you weren't a d-bag, what is this?

Most horrible list ever. as a 20 year old, I've only been playing games since 1996, so I'm not going to comment on anything prior to say 1998, as I'm not bothered to do any thorough research like you (as OP) should have.

Your 2000 and 2001 choices seem rather odd, as 2001 I think MGS2 looks better than that game. Not too sure about your 2003 choice either. Max Payne, seriously? As for 2004 Far Cry looks absolutely superb and was GK for a little while but Half Life 2 definitely surpassed it graphically, as did Doom 3. They both came out in 2004, so FC1 ended up being the third best looking game of 2004. FEAR is the correct choice for 2005, but in 2006 I don't think it was Gears of War. Oblivion on PC looks better than Gears on 360. Gears PC (2007) > Oblivion PC (2006 > Gears 360 (2006) > Oblivion 360 (2006)

As for 2007-2011 you only need one game. That's Crysis. Crysis was the undisputed graphics king from November 2007 to November 2011, its 4 year run makes it historically the longest lasting graphics king ever. (at least since 3D gaming)

Metro 2033 came really close, but it wasn't until Battlefield 3 came out 48 months after Crysis 1's release that the general consensus was that Crysis had been dethroned.

As for 2012, FC3 was definitely the best looking game that year, not too sure if it was the graphics king though. Crysis 2 certainly wasn't a GK at any point in time.

2013 you chose Ryse, really? blind Xbox fanboyism or a huge troll wanting to stir up SW? Those are the only motives I can think of to chose that game. Crysis 3 came out early 2013 and currently there isn't a single game that comes close to the level detail and graphical fidelity of Crysis 3. After Crysis 3 you have Metro: Last Light, Battlefield 4 (PC), Killzone 4: Shadowfall, then Ryse.

Even if for whatever insane reason you thought Ryse looked better than KZSF (which it doesn't) you really think it looks better than Crysis 3 and BF4(PC)?! Man, you lems are seriously delusional.

Does it crush your spirit to know Gamespot, IGN, Eurogamer, Adam Sessler, GameTrailers, Rev3gaming, Digital Foundry, Game informer and others (ALL the top gaming website experts), all award Ryse as "having hands down the best graphics of next gen."?

Even your own poll voted Ryse. Your console is weak and worthless.... I know, I own a PS4, its a POS

All you had to do was post this in games discussion jag.

2001: MGS2 looked incredible for its time, but could have looked a lot better if it wasn't bottlenecked by the PS2's lack of anti-aliasing, pixel shading, and bump mapping. And among the Xbox and GameCube launch titles that did have these graphical features, it was Rogue Leader that impressed me the most.

2004: It was a close call between Doom 3 and Far Cry. Could have gone either way.

2007-2011: That would be a bit too convenient, but I suppose it would have saved a lot of hassle.

2012: Glad you agree on something.

2013: Again, close call between Crysis 3 and Ryse, and could have gone either way. But like I've already explained above, Ryse uses a newer version of CryEngine, and thus utilizes more advanced graphical features. What it lacks in resolution and texture details, it quite easily makes up for with superior lighting & shading, higher polygon counts, and better animations. It's pretty much the closest I've seen to a pre-rendered CGI played in real-time, and could have looked a lot better if it wasn't bottlenecked by the X1's limited hardware.

85% of these "Graphics Kings" are just glorified Tech Demos.

BTW - Killzone looks better than RYSE, so far as glorified Tech Demos go.

Now that I think about it, that probably wouldn't have been a bad idea. But it's probably a bit late for that now.

That´s because you haven´t seen Aquanox,it was by far the most beatiful and techinically advanced game of 2001,RL isn´t even on the same league.

https://www.google.pt/search?q=aquanox&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=dV3QUqvEDaLH7Ab2xIGYCg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1680&bih=945

Edit: It seems I´m not even the first person to mention Aquanox for 2001,it´s that obvious.

I just found out something interesting about Ryse:

Digital Foundry vs. Ryse: Son of Rome

"Unfortunately, that brings us to another disappointment; Crytek's stated commitment to "real-time, all the time" goes unrealised in Ryse with the move to pre-rendered cut-scenes. This is a common technique employed in many last-generation games that helps move the narrative forward while concealing loading, but we can't help feel disappointment in missing the opportunity to see these scenes play out in real-time. Of course, Crytek has claimed to use the same basic model rigging for all characters both in and out of cut-scenes. The more significant issue with this approach to storytelling lies with the video compression. With both next-gen consoles supporting large optical disc formats it's disappointing that higher-quality video compression wasn't selected. Ryse doesn't seem to be alone either, with a number of other next-generation titles suffering from the very same issue. We only hope that developers will reconsider their approach to pre-recorded content in the future."

It looks like a lot of PS360 games also used this approach, including the Uncharted games and The Last of Us.

Depending on the extent that FMV is used in Ryse, I might have to reconsider that 'graphics king' title I gave it...

You're talking about something really, really old and dated. It's not worth it. He He.

Okay, it looks like some of the most impressive cut-scenes in Ryse are indeed FMV after all, at least according to Digital Foundry. That probably explains that tweet above where he wasn't sure about whether Ryse or Killzone SF is the console graphics king.

I was surprised when I saw the X1 pull off incredible graphics like Ryse, but it looks like it really was too good to be true. They probably just rendered those cut-scenes using a PC. A bit disappointing, considering how much I was defending it earlier. Oh well, Crysis 3 it is then...

It's a hard argument to have, as both looked outstanding at the time and while Doom 3 had the tech, Half Life 2 had the extraordinarily well-designed levels. Those two games defined my 2005. That and CoD: UO and Day of Defeat 1.3/Source for multiplayer.

Weren't those just pre-rend... -animated scenes though?

No Uncharted 2 for 2009. What kind of sorcery is this?

There are several reasons why I chose RE5 over U2 as 2009 console graphics king. Firstly, while U2 looks more vibrant, RE5 looks a bit more realistic. Secondly, the lighting in RE5 also looks a bit better. And finally, U2's cut-scenes are pre-rendered, whereas RE5's cut-scenes are rendered in real-time.

I have played both games and RE5 doesn't look as good as Uncharted 2. I don't recall RE5 having this amount of detail.

And yes it's true Naughty Dog uses pre rendered cutscenes. But the only think they buff up is the character models which look almost identical in-game.

Pre rendered

In game

Nice thread. Good memories.

wait so arcade>pc :P

@happyduds77 said:

@Jag85 said:

@happyduds77 said:

No Uncharted 2 for 2009. What kind of sorcery is this?

There are several reasons why I chose RE5 over U2 as 2009 console graphics king. Firstly, while U2 looks more vibrant, RE5 looks a bit more realistic. Secondly, the lighting in RE5 also looks a bit better. And finally, U2's cut-scenes are pre-rendered, whereas RE5's cut-scenes are rendered in real-time.

I have played both games and RE5 doesn't look as good as Uncharted 2. I don't recall RE5 having this amount of detail.

And yes it's true Naughty Dog uses pre rendered cutscenes. But the only think they buff up is the character models which look almost identical in-game.

The first two cut-scene screenshots definitely look pre-rendered.

As for the latter two gameplay screenshots, I don't really see how they look any better than the RE5 gameplay screenshot I posted?

Back in the 80's, the arcade version was the golden standard.

If we talk generic computers as PCs, it's pretty close because of computers such as the Amiga, Atari, ST, and Apple IIGS. Games on those three looked great. I recall some arcades were in fact Amigas without the case.

Now if we take the PC as strictly IBM-compatibles, no. Back then, IBM-compatibles were often limited to 4-color CGA or 16-color EGA. Many of them didn't even have sound except for the bleeps and bloops. When I had my Tandy 1000SX, I was able to game with 16 colors and 3-channels ound because some games supported the Tandy hardware. But, the majority of them defaulted to CGA and really crappy, obnoxious sound.

While most IBM-compatibles still made do with CGA/EGA and lousy sound, the Amiga was already doing this. All from two floppies:

Newtek Demoreel 1

@Jag85 said:

@happyduds77 said:

@Jag85 said:

@happyduds77 said:

No Uncharted 2 for 2009. What kind of sorcery is this?

There are several reasons why I chose RE5 over U2 as 2009 console graphics king. Firstly, while U2 looks more vibrant, RE5 looks a bit more realistic. Secondly, the lighting in RE5 also looks a bit better. And finally, U2's cut-scenes are pre-rendered, whereas RE5's cut-scenes are rendered in real-time.

I have played both games and RE5 doesn't look as good as Uncharted 2. I don't recall RE5 having this amount of detail.

And yes it's true Naughty Dog uses pre rendered cutscenes. But the only think they buff up is the character models which look almost identical in-game.

The first two cut-scene screenshots definitely look pre-rendered.

As for the latter two gameplay screenshots, I don't really see how they look any better than the RE5 gameplay screenshot I posted?

The first two were In-game cutscenes, not CG. I don't even have to explain it if you actually have played the game, but whatever.

And the RE5 screen you posted is a bullshot capcom released before even the game came out.

I wasn't suggesting they were CGI, but pre-rendered. Even a lot of "in-game" cut-scenes are pre-rendered using the same game engine and then ran as a video file, rather than rendering in real-time using the console. This is a common technique with Blu-Ray games in particular (e.g. like TLOU or Ryse). The best way you can tell whether it's real-time is whether alternate costumes show up in cut-scenes, like in MGS4 or RE5.

As for RE5, it didn't seem like a marketing bullshot to me, because I remember it looking like that in the game. Nevertheless, I'll look for another screenshot just in case...

But there was no black/white screen to load the pre rendered file, it just zooms in to show the cutscene and zooms out to give the player control of the character again. Plus you can clearly see that I was using a custom character skin, which further proofs it's 100% in-game