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

  • 172 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Edited by Wasdie (48813 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

@Wasdie said:

FEAR was 2005 and it looked better than CoD 2. It can be argued that Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 were the best looking games in 2004.

I also love how once dedicated GPUs for the PC were released, the PC quickly started becoming the go-to platform for best graphics.

Crysis 3 is also a 2013 game and played on a proper high end PC looks better than Ryse. They do run the same engine, only you can push a lot more graphics on a PC than you can on an Xbox One. Ryse has a better artstyle though with more vibrant colors.

I wasn't sure whether to go with FEAR or COD2. To me, both looked just as good as each other. But trying to limit my list to just one game per year makes it really difficult. Same goes for Crysis 3 and Ryse.

By the way, Ryse uses a 4th generation CryEngine, while Crysis 3 uses CryEngine 3. While Crysis 3 has higher resolutions and more texture details, Ryse has higher polygon counts for the assets as well as improved cinematic lighting & shading effects. Ryse could have looked a lot better if it was a PC game though.

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.

#52 Posted by longtonguecat (2488 posts) -

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.

#53 Edited by Cranler (7013 posts) -

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.

#54 Edited by Vatusus (3805 posts) -

@kingtito said:

@Vatusus said:

lolryse

900p @ 20fps

yet looks better than 1080p KZ:SF

It doesnt

#55 Edited by kingtito (4464 posts) -
#56 Edited by Vatusus (3805 posts) -

@kingtito said:

@Chozofication said:

@kingtito said:

@Vatusus said:

lolryse

900p @ 20fps

yet looks better than 1080p KZ:SF or at the very least is comparable. Pretty much makes your 900p 20fps argument moot now doesn't it?

Not really. Ryse has high poly levels on certain charaters and some decent lighting, rest is shit.

to be fair, killzone won't be impressive for long.

Funny doesn't look like shit on my TV and none of the websites that gave it best graphics on console seem to think so either. I think I'll go with my eyes on this one.

KZ isn't impressive. Looks good but impressive would be a strong word to use.

What sites gave Ryse "best graphics"?

links please?

#57 Posted by TheEroica (12750 posts) -

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....

#58 Posted by kingtito (4464 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

@kingtito said:

@Chozofication said:

@kingtito said:

@Vatusus said:

lolryse

900p @ 20fps

yet looks better than 1080p KZ:SF or at the very least is comparable. Pretty much makes your 900p 20fps argument moot now doesn't it?

Not really. Ryse has high poly levels on certain charaters and some decent lighting, rest is shit.

to be fair, killzone won't be impressive for long.

Funny doesn't look like shit on my TV and none of the websites that gave it best graphics on console seem to think so either. I think I'll go with my eyes on this one.

KZ isn't impressive. Looks good but impressive would be a strong word to use.

What sites gave Ryse "best graphics"?

links please?

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

#59 Posted by whiskeystrike (12068 posts) -

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.

#60 Edited by Vatusus (3805 posts) -

@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

#61 Edited by Jag85 (3988 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@Jag85 said:

@Wasdie said:

FEAR was 2005 and it looked better than CoD 2. It can be argued that Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 were the best looking games in 2004.

I also love how once dedicated GPUs for the PC were released, the PC quickly started becoming the go-to platform for best graphics.

Crysis 3 is also a 2013 game and played on a proper high end PC looks better than Ryse. They do run the same engine, only you can push a lot more graphics on a PC than you can on an Xbox One. Ryse has a better artstyle though with more vibrant colors.

I wasn't sure whether to go with FEAR or COD2. To me, both looked just as good as each other. But trying to limit my list to just one game per year makes it really difficult. Same goes for Crysis 3 and Ryse.

By the way, Ryse uses a 4th generation CryEngine, while Crysis 3 uses CryEngine 3. While Crysis 3 has higher resolutions and more texture details, Ryse has higher polygon counts for the assets as well as improved cinematic lighting & shading effects. Ryse could have looked a lot better if it was a PC game though.

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.

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.

@Cranler said:

@longtonguecat said:

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.

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

#63 Posted by k2theswiss (16223 posts) -

Nice time line!

#64 Edited by Jebus213 (8515 posts) -

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

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

Ryse? Really?!

#65 Posted by Cranler (7013 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

@Wasdie said:

@Jag85 said:

@Wasdie said:

FEAR was 2005 and it looked better than CoD 2. It can be argued that Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 were the best looking games in 2004.

I also love how once dedicated GPUs for the PC were released, the PC quickly started becoming the go-to platform for best graphics.

Crysis 3 is also a 2013 game and played on a proper high end PC looks better than Ryse. They do run the same engine, only you can push a lot more graphics on a PC than you can on an Xbox One. Ryse has a better artstyle though with more vibrant colors.

I wasn't sure whether to go with FEAR or COD2. To me, both looked just as good as each other. But trying to limit my list to just one game per year makes it really difficult. Same goes for Crysis 3 and Ryse.

By the way, Ryse uses a 4th generation CryEngine, while Crysis 3 uses CryEngine 3. While Crysis 3 has higher resolutions and more texture details, Ryse has higher polygon counts for the assets as well as improved cinematic lighting & shading effects. Ryse could have looked a lot better if it was a PC game though.

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.

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.

@Cranler said:

@longtonguecat said:

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.

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

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

#66 Edited by Sollet (6905 posts) -

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.

#67 Posted by Jag85 (3988 posts) -

@Cranler said:

@Jag85 said:

@Wasdie said:

@Jag85 said:

@Wasdie said:

FEAR was 2005 and it looked better than CoD 2. It can be argued that Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 were the best looking games in 2004.

I also love how once dedicated GPUs for the PC were released, the PC quickly started becoming the go-to platform for best graphics.

Crysis 3 is also a 2013 game and played on a proper high end PC looks better than Ryse. They do run the same engine, only you can push a lot more graphics on a PC than you can on an Xbox One. Ryse has a better artstyle though with more vibrant colors.

I wasn't sure whether to go with FEAR or COD2. To me, both looked just as good as each other. But trying to limit my list to just one game per year makes it really difficult. Same goes for Crysis 3 and Ryse.

By the way, Ryse uses a 4th generation CryEngine, while Crysis 3 uses CryEngine 3. While Crysis 3 has higher resolutions and more texture details, Ryse has higher polygon counts for the assets as well as improved cinematic lighting & shading effects. Ryse could have looked a lot better if it was a PC game though.

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.

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.

@Cranler said:

@longtonguecat said:

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.

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

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

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.

#68 Posted by hippiesanta (9322 posts) -

TC obviously not a fan of sony

#69 Edited by Jag85 (3988 posts) -

@Sollet said:

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.

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.

@hippiesanta said:

TC obviously not a fan of sony

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.

#70 Edited by Vatusus (3805 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

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)

#71 Posted by Wasdie (48813 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

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.

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.

#72 Posted by Silenthps (7263 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

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.

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

#73 Posted by Cranler (7013 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

@Cranler said:

@Jag85 said:

@Wasdie said:

@Jag85 said:

@Wasdie said:

FEAR was 2005 and it looked better than CoD 2. It can be argued that Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 were the best looking games in 2004.

I also love how once dedicated GPUs for the PC were released, the PC quickly started becoming the go-to platform for best graphics.

Crysis 3 is also a 2013 game and played on a proper high end PC looks better than Ryse. They do run the same engine, only you can push a lot more graphics on a PC than you can on an Xbox One. Ryse has a better artstyle though with more vibrant colors.

I wasn't sure whether to go with FEAR or COD2. To me, both looked just as good as each other. But trying to limit my list to just one game per year makes it really difficult. Same goes for Crysis 3 and Ryse.

By the way, Ryse uses a 4th generation CryEngine, while Crysis 3 uses CryEngine 3. While Crysis 3 has higher resolutions and more texture details, Ryse has higher polygon counts for the assets as well as improved cinematic lighting & shading effects. Ryse could have looked a lot better if it was a PC game though.

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.

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.

@Cranler said:

@longtonguecat said:

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.

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

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

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.

What games were completely 3d before Quake?

#74 Edited by Jag85 (3988 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

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)

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.

@Cranler said:

What games were completely 3d before Quake?

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.

#75 Edited by Renegade311 (334 posts) -

@lostrib said:

Ryse for 2013...yeah this will go well

First thing I thought too lol

#76 Edited by robokill (971 posts) -
@Jag85 said:

@robokill said:

how can you possibly leave out mario 64, that's as groundbreaking a game that ever existed specifically because of the graphics

Like I said above, 1972-1998 is dominated by arcades because they were a lot more powerful than home systems back then. Nevertheless, Mario 64 did have some of the best graphics on a home system in 1996. I think we could do another list that focuses on home systems, excluding arcade systems, although that would be a lot more difficult.

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@Jag85: There were variants of the 3DO which looked even better than the natove 3Do version such as the 3Do Blaster which is basically a 3DO on a card that utilized the PC's graphics subsystem. I recall seeing one demoed somewhere. It looked practically identical to the later PC version shown here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b821-IBq0U

Road Rash for the 3DO looked very impressive, combining 3D polygons and 2D sprites in an almost seamless manner. It easily rivalled some of the early PlayStation games.

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

#77 Posted by Mozelleple112 (6527 posts) -

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.

#78 Edited by I_can_haz (5734 posts) -

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.

#79 Posted by MrXboxOne (682 posts) -

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

#80 Posted by Jakandsigz (4512 posts) -

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.

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

#81 Posted by Jag85 (3988 posts) -

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.

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.

#82 Posted by Netherscourge (16271 posts) -

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

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

#83 Edited by Jag85 (3988 posts) -

@I_can_haz said:

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.

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

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.

#84 Edited by MrYaotubo (2339 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

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.

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.

#85 Edited by Jag85 (3988 posts) -

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...

#86 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (14785 posts) -

@robokill said:
@Jag85 said:

@robokill said:

how can you possibly leave out mario 64, that's as groundbreaking a game that ever existed specifically because of the graphics

Like I said above, 1972-1998 is dominated by arcades because they were a lot more powerful than home systems back then. Nevertheless, Mario 64 did have some of the best graphics on a home system in 1996. I think we could do another list that focuses on home systems, excluding arcade systems, although that would be a lot more difficult.

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@Jag85: There were variants of the 3DO which looked even better than the natove 3Do version such as the 3Do Blaster which is basically a 3DO on a card that utilized the PC's graphics subsystem. I recall seeing one demoed somewhere. It looked practically identical to the later PC version shown here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b821-IBq0U

Road Rash for the 3DO looked very impressive, combining 3D polygons and 2D sprites in an almost seamless manner. It easily rivalled some of the early PlayStation games.

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

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

#87 Edited by Jag85 (3988 posts) -

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...

#88 Edited by WallofTruth (699 posts) -

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.

Your own thread proves you wrong.

#89 Posted by foxhound_fox (85372 posts) -
@Wasdie said:

It can be argued that Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 were the best looking games in 2004.

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.

#90 Posted by foxhound_fox (85372 posts) -

The biggest snub is easily Dragon's Lair. That game came out in 1983.

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

#91 Posted by happyduds77 (1071 posts) -

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

#92 Edited by Jag85 (3988 posts) -

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.

#93 Edited by happyduds77 (1071 posts) -

@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.

Pre rendered

In game

#94 Posted by Gaming-Planet (13467 posts) -

Nice thread. Good memories.

#95 Edited by kemar7856 (11490 posts) -

wait so arcade>pc :P

#96 Posted by Jag85 (3988 posts) -

@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?

#97 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (14785 posts) -

wait so arcade>pc :P

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

#98 Posted by happyduds77 (1071 posts) -

@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.

#99 Posted by Jag85 (3988 posts) -

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...

#100 Edited by happyduds77 (1071 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

@happyduds77 said:

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