Board 8 > What was the biggest leap between gaming console generations?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I wanted to make a joke post changing my answer to 8-9 but I can't even think of a joke reason for that

RySenkari posted...

2nd to 3rd is not that big of a jump. If not for the crash, you absolutely would've had games like Super Mario Bros. on Colecovision.

It wasn't just the hardware but design philosophy, though SMB1 on the NES does look a lot better.

Specs-wise alone, 1-2 looks even better, I don't think any 1st gen console could even fathom Space Invaders.

To be fair to the 1st gen era, I'm just referring to consoles. Mainframe systems could handle way more complex games like Dungeon and Colossal Cave Adventure and arcade games could look surprisingly good.

Brayze_II posted...

2-3 was the biggest leap. It was an extinction event, the types of games that were common in 2 don't really exist now

Arcade style games will always exist.

It's got to be 4 to 5. It's the only time where you could really look at launch titles (N64 in particular) and realize that there's no way these games could have existed on earlier systems.

The early Famicom games were arcade ports that, from a gameplay perspective, were basically just 2600 games with better graphics.

Super Mario World was impressive but the NES could have handled largely the same game with 8-bit fidelity.

5 to 6 is probably more revolutionary than 2 to 3 was. Early Dreamcast games were absolutely stunning compared to what gen 5 offered.

I voted 4 > 5, but I I kind of regretted not voting for 2 > 3 almost immediately. Still not entirely sure what my choice is, and I am sympathetic to the argument that the 2 > 3 transitions were more inevitable, and the evolution of the 2nd gen was disrupted by the crash.

I'm surprised people are sleeping on 6th to 7th so much. I wouldn't vote for it overall, but I would definitely put it above 5th to 6th. Things looked a lot better between 5 and 6, but the game design principles seem more or less the same to me; the way people think about games/game design changed so much in the late 2000's, that I'd have to give it the edge over a lot of other generational transitions.

Wanglicious posted...

action RPGs were able to become a genre that could exist (see: KH)

Wha? There were action RPGs on SNES and PS1 et al. They were either top-down or side-scrolling but they absolutely existed.

But I guess you're saying action games didn't exist either before this which is wild. Character action, sure.

Wanglicious posted...

oh yeah, can't forget the importance of storage either. between DVDs and yes, even the Gamecube's mini discs, the increased storage helped a ton.

My understanding is that the big benefit of discs wasn't really more storage but cheaper production. There's a reason you saw multi-disc PS1 games but no multi-cart N64 games (I guess the expansion pack was kind of this, generically).

I feel like that "step back" Para describes is actually more of an indication of how big of a stepforward it really was. Sometimes to make really big process you have to take some steps backwards to be able to open up the path forward.

Yeah - we had to sacrifice polish that developed in the 4th generation over the 3rd - because it had opened up a whole new universe of possibility that had to be figured out. 5th to 6ths big leap forward graphically was impressive an was more noticeable than subsequent generations, (though honestly 6 to 7 was kinda similar) but it's primarily polishing steps that 4th to 5th had created.

The Atari 2600/VCS was only ever designed to play Pong/paddle games, and it was through the combined wizardry of developers such as those found at Activision, Imagic, and Atari themselves that it ever became anything more. Dedicated machines like Colecovision and Intellivision are more capable than the VCS, but to say that they've left a comparable footprint to Atari on the landscape of games today is delusional. They were the benchmark, paving a path forward for the 8-bit consoles and home computers of gen 3. With the NES, console games became a phenomenon, more than an arcade-sized distraction and onward to much richer, immersive experiences.

If you want to gain a new perspective for this medium, check out Atari 50: The Anniversary Celebration (my GOTY for 2022) and try out those 2600 games for yourself. If you think Castlevania II is cryptic, you ain't seen Swordquest.

I lost my post...hate that shit so much GameFAQs, come on.

Not retyping all that again, but 4 --> 5 is the answer. Ya'll have touched on the 3D-expansion of dimensions and genres already. Controllers completely changed too that generation to allow this. Joysticks and later dual analog changed everything -- there were significant shifts from d-pad gameplay. They allowed for Nintendo to have memory cards, and rumble packs were introduced first as accessories before being built in. The Playstation controller began that generation, the most definitive base controller of 3D-gaming. The Nintendo 64 made it easier than ever for four players to play together. Even in the designer-gamer angle, it's the first time I really remember being able to buy controllers (and systems) in different colors...look how far that's gone since then. The controllers have always evolved, but this generation evolved them enough to support the overall case already made for 4 --> 5.

Respect to 2 --> 3 for sure, but it's not the same.

Its 4-5 because it was such a paradigm shift it basically needs to be disqualified from this discussion. However 5-6 was also a huge jump that should not be understated.

foolm0r0n posted...

I wanted to make a joke post changing my answer to 8-9 but I can't even think of a joke reason for that

Well, it was bigger than 7-8 its just almost nobody can actually make games that take advantage of the full power and features.

I understand the 2 -> 3 arguments, but since that's the answer Lopen is supporting, 4 -> 5 seems like the obvious right one.

Literally obsessed

LightningStrikes posted...

Well, it was bigger than 7-8 its just almost nobody can actually make games that take advantage of the full power and features.

Every gen had this at the start though. Around 5 years into it you would see the real advancements, especially as last gen was left behind. But this time it seems like none of it even matters.

i'm not that interested in biggest, but which do people think was a bigger leap - the 7-to-8 jump, or the 8-to-9 jump?

7-8 easily bigger than 8-9.
if for no other reason it was the year they went to x86 architecture. from the Cell and PowerPC to standard PC.

2 - 3, 4-5 and 5-6 are the only choices here imo.

Like, if you think of Final Fantasy IX as the final PSX Fantasy, then compare it to XII as the final PS2 fantasy, purely on a technical level...

foolm0r0n posted...

SNES is when the simple games actually became extinct.

SNES is tons of simple platformers that didn't advance much past Mario or Mega Man. But you call one modern and the other atari so idk

RyoCaliente posted...

2 - 3, 4-5 and 5-6 are the only choices here imo.

Like, if you think of Final Fantasy IX as the final PSX Fantasy, then compare it to XII as the final PS2 fantasy, purely on a technical level...

hell, compare FFIX to FFX

Paratroopa1 posted...

I never really know how much of my experience is colored by the games I had and did not have in my childhood, but the difference between the 2nd gen and 3rd gen is like... the difference between "proto-video games" and "video games." Playing most Atari games now is like - I don't feel like I'm playing a game, I feel like I'm fucking around with a prototype of something that could be cool later. When I play NES games I feel like I'm just playing video games. Of course, for a lot of people the NES feels as dated as the Atari now (and I dread the idea that even the SNES/Genesis is dated to some people) but to me the 3rd generation is the beginning of modern console games.

This feels like the evil twin of "every game now is a movie instead of a game".

Imagine going from a NES to a Neo Geo. That may be the biggest leap of anything ever.

I get why someone would vote for 3D though.

foolm0r0n posted...

What lol. There was SOTN and that's it.

RIP Mega Man and Street Fighter

I agree with 2-3, but as 3 had the first "modern" games, 6 saw the removal of the biggest remaining limitations. There were still some limits that affected the type of game that could be made, but most genres could be pulled off competently without running into an inevitable hardware wall.

Incidentally, 7 seems like the peak of consoles being terribly underpowered compared to PC

2->3 was a huge leap in how action games flowed from start to finish. RPGs were already there, Adventure, Cloudy Mountain, Ultima, Wizardry, etc. Still, the 8-bit era really made those games focus on user experience. I'll take NES Ultima IV over PC. I loved the Gold Box games but honestly, NES Pool of Radiance was better than PC. Games stopped feeling like something you tricked a computer into doing.

My gut still went with 5->6. I feel like computer gaming sorta covered the jump from 4->5 for me in terms of polygons. And I think the new world of 3D gaming for consoles made for less polish and gameplay focus. It also enabled some great stuff! I guess I feel like the best games of this era were 2D games or RPGs. And OoT.

5->6 is when games seemed to catch up and pass most PC games. PC games had mods and online multiplayer but PCs were also very expensive. And prone to all sorts of issues that weren't always easy to diagnose. And hardware support issues, etc.