• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Games with visuals that topped their generation & and their sequels that didnt

Mohonky

Member
Cant recall how I got to thinking about this, think it was in a thread about action hack and slash titles. Anyway it got me onto Ninja Gaiden and watching some videos of Ninja Gaiden on Xbox and then Xbox 360. What got me about Ninja Gaiden 2 was how despite being a reasonable looking game, compared to other games around it it wasnt visually amazing. It was a good looking game, but it never really jumped out at you as being something massively out of the ordinary. By contrast, when you went back and considered the Xbox original, the original was just head and shoulders above virtually every other game around it.

It was kind of like Team Ninja knew something about the hardware or were able to use it in such a way that when Ninja Gaiden launched there really wasnt anything out in that category you could compare it too it just looked and ran so much better. Then when next gen rolled around and the Xbox360 Ninja Gaiden 2 was announced you kind of expected it to be something extraordinary visually and yet for whatever reason it kind of wasnt. It still looked good, but its like whatever technical proficiency Team Ninja had over the competition had disappeared.

It wasnt just Team Ninja either. Another game that really made you do a double take was Riddick - Escape From Butcher Bay. In the same year iD were preparing to launch Doom 3, a PC game that had PC gamers scrambling to upgrade their rigs, somehow Starbreeze not only beat them to the punch with a lot of the visual effects Doom 3 was touting, they managed to somehow find a way to launch it on the Xbox. Yes, obviously the PC version was better and Doom 3 on a PC was its measure, the fact the game even ran on the Xbox was amazing. Visually it took a giant steaming piss on anything else on the system.

Yet like Ninja Gaiden, the follow up to Riddick, Dark Athena didnt have that same effect. Yeh, it was in HD and it still looked great, but it wasnt something you would right home about as being in the top tier of its generation. For a team that absolutely blew the doors off what you thought an Xbox could do, they never again really hit anything in the next generation of that calibre. They still made great looking games; The Darkness, Dark Athena etc but they were just good looking games of about what you expected at the time.

Lastly was Splinter Cell Theory. None of the Splinter Cell games have ever been a slouch, every new game looks pretty damned good but Chaos Theory was up there on Xbox with the very very best.

So not sure what happen, but if you went into expectations of what the developers were able to achieve with the originals, their next gen counter parts kind of disappointed; not because they were bad looking, they werent, but as far what the originals were able to muster compared to their peers, the next gen versions just sort of fell to the same level.

Have epthere ever been any other games of dimishing returns like this?
 

maneil99

Member
God of War? Might not count but GoW3 had alot better set pieces then GoW:A. I'd even argue Halo Reach is more impressive then Halo 4. Halo 4 had a fraction of the AI or size that Halo Reach offered.

Uncharted 2.

3 looks as good, but not better.

Eh no. Uncharted 3 looks alot better.

Uncharted 3 -> TLOU is a downgrade I think.
 

sn00zer

Member
Uncharted 2.

3 looks as good, but not better.

I.....have you played 3?
It didnt have the same impact or as big a jump but UC3 absolutely looked better than UC2

KH2 is easily up there as one of the best looking PS2 games, the handheld games certainly pushed the hardware they were on, but they never looked better than the PS2 games
 
The Final Fantasy XIII games come to mind.

First one still looks amazing while the overall quality went downhill with XIII-2
 
Metal Gear Solid 2 and then Metal Gear Solid 3 (which both did neat things in their own way on the PS2) to...whatever the hell MGS4 looked like :/
 
Probably Killzone 2. Still a truly amazing looking (and playing) shooter, yet Killzone 3 didn't really have that same effect.

Those games are the same generation though, and Killzone 3 looks better.

I would say SMB3 > SMW. For the NES SMB3 was very impressive and had some of the best and most detailed visuals around, but SMW was pretty ordinary by SNES standards (yes, it was a launch title but even Yoshi's Island was overshadowed visually at time by DKC)

Halo 2 was pretty impressive as an Xbox game, but Halo 3 was pretty underwhelming visually (outside of the great lighting).
 

sn00zer

Member
FEAR. I think it actually got worse looking with each iteration.

FEAR 2? No...FEAR 3...absolutely, visuals tanked hard in 3
I will say though that Fear 2 removed a lot of the interactive elements, but the texture work and modeling was gorgeous
 

TEJ

Member
Tales of Vesperia's visuals still impress me. The other tales of games from last gen? Not so much.
 
Perfect Dark was a technical marvel on the N64

Then the 360 came along and we got wall guy

2077416-wallguy_screen.jpg


lol his chin is in his trap muscle
 

Zoned

Actively hates charity
Crysis. Game had the biggest impact when it comes to graphics, but it's successor even though unquestionably looks better, but still didn't have any impact, thanks to consoles.
 
I liked neither game, but even then Resident Evil 5 still looked considerably more polished than 6.

Maybe memory's fucking with me; I played RE5 in '09 and RE6 just a month ago, but RE6 had some nigh photo-realstic environmental details that I never remember RE5 having.
 

PirateKing

Junior Member
Ninja Gaiden. Black was especially amazing on that generation and one of the best looking games ever made.

Ninja Gaiden 2 on the other hand was pretty average graphic wise. Although all those limbs cutting was amazing but dat framerate tho.
 

Teremap

Banned
Crysis. Game had the biggest impact when it comes to graphics, but it's successor even though unquestionably looks better, but still didn't have any impact, thanks to consoles.
I dnno, DX11 Crysis 2 was pretty much cutting edge when it was released...
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
FEAR. I think it actually got worse looking with each iteration.
Not true at all.

The original FEAR is an incredibly boxy looking game with very simple level geometry that relies entirely on textures to pick up the slack. The sequel was dramatically more detailed all around, featured better effects work, and ran more smoothly.

FEAR 3 wasn't developed by the same team, though, so it really doesn't count.

I dnno, DX11 Crysis 2 was pretty much cutting edge when it was released...
Yes it was. Crysis 3 is also incredibly impressive.

Even the original DX9 Crysis 2 was a brilliant looking game that ran buttery smooth on a moderate PC. All of their technical efforts were incredible.
 

JordanN

Banned
Dead or Alive 4 > Dead or Alive 5

Doa5 has better character models I guess, but everything else looks like shit.
I remember DOA4 blew me away when it came out. 720p/60fps out the gate with good motion blur and reflections in the environment. The anti-aliasing was also flawless. DOA5 has nasty jaggies.

 

Superflat

Member
Silent Hill games on the PS2 were stunning for its gen. Silent Hill's entries on HD console -- Homecoming and Downpour, ended up simply looking 'okay' next its contemporaries like Gears of War and Uncharted series.

I liked neither game, but even then Resident Evil 5 still looked considerably more polished than 6.

I thought so too. While the tech got a little better, I saw way more cut corners and muddy visuals in RE6 in comparison to RE5.
 
I dnno, DX11 Crysis 2 was pretty much cutting edge when it was released...

Yep. Crysis 3 is a looker as well so I don't think that series qualifies.

How about Virtua Fighter? 1 and especially 2 and 3 were pretty incredible looking for their time. Subsequent entries haven't had the same graphical "wow" factor.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Dead or Alive 4 > Dead or Alive 5

Doa5 has better character models I guess, but everything else looks like shit.
I remember DOA4 blew me away when it came out. 720p/60fps out the gate with good motion blur and reflections in the environment. The anti-aliasing was also flawless.
DOA4 doesn't use motion blur during gameplay. Those shots released with beautiful object blur were fake.

Also, DOA4 doesn't actually feature *ANY* anti-aliasing. It is a raw 1280x720 image completely free of AA.

How about Virtua Fighter? 1 and especially 2 and 3 were pretty incredible looking for their time. Subsequent entries haven't had the same graphical "wow" factor.
Well, I first played VF5 in 2005 before the launch of Xbox 360 or PS3 and, let me tell you, it was insane looking. By the time it arrived on PS3 in 2007 it had been around for a while.
 

JordanN

Banned
DOA4 doesn't use motion blur during gameplay. Those shots released with beautiful object blur were fake.

Also, DOA4 doesn't actually feature *ANY* anti-aliasing. It is a raw 1280x720 image completely free of AA.

Really? Says it uses 2xAA.
Both images are direct feed by the way. DOA4 had to be doing something right because aliasing was the last thing I saw when I first saw it.
 

sn00zer

Member
Half Life 2.

Gravity Gun was cool for about 5 minutes and then it was boring.

I.....wat.....
I would agree that Ep1 and 2 really didnt change gaming forever like HL2 did, but HL2 was insanely influential on modern gaming, even more so than HL1, especially in terms of visuals
 

Creaking

He touched the black heart of a mod
Metal Gear Solid 2 and then Metal Gear Solid 3 (which both did neat things in their own way on the PS2) to...whatever the hell MGS4 looked like :/

I thought MGS4 looked great for 2008. Lots of detailed models and nice image quality.
 
System Shock (SURPRISE). First game pretty much blew away every other game at the time with its tech, the second is infamous for being ugly. The original actually looks better at times, despiting coming out five years earlier:

3396-system-shock-dos-screenshot-a-corridor-leading-to-the-central.gif

8.jpg

3390-system-shock-dos-screenshot-the-same-scene-640-x-480-fullscreen.gif

4.jpg


It was undoubtedly intentional, since part of the reason SS1 bombed was because you needed a high-end machine to run it, but still.
 

Blackage

Member
I think people are getting caught up in worse sequel, as opposed to worse sequel visually. Like Uncharted 3, God of War: A, etc
 

sn00zer

Member
Probably Killzone 2. Still a truly amazing looking (and playing) shooter, yet Killzone 3 didn't really have that same effect.
No
Uncharted 2.

3 looks as good, but not better.
No
God of War? Might not count but GoW3 had alot better set pieces then GoW:A. I'd even argue Halo Reach is more impressive then Halo 4. Halo 4 had a fraction of the AI or size that Halo Reach offered.
.
No
FEAR. I think it actually got worse looking with each iteration.
No (cept 3)
God of War 3 - GoW:Ascension I reckon.
No
Crysis. Game had the biggest impact when it comes to graphics, but it's successor even though unquestionably looks better, but still didn't have any impact, thanks to consoles.
No

Y'all are crazy. If a game looked better than previous entries on the same system, it topped that generation. ie. GOW, Fear (1+2), Crysis, Uncharted, Killzone all had sequels that topped previous entries in the series in terms of visuals, most on the same system. And Crysis 2 was a huge leap in tech at the time.
 

ChawlieTheFair

pip pip cheerio you slags!
No

No

No

No (cept 3)

No

No

Y'all are crazy. If a game looked better than previous entries on the same system, it topped that generation. ie. GOW, Fear (1+2), Crysis, Uncharted, Killzone all had sequels that topped previous entries in the series in terms of visuals, most on the same system.

I'd actually argue that KZ3 looks worse, or at the very least barely improved. IDK, might be nolstagia goggles telling me that though.
 

Blues1990

Member
Dark Souls II immediately come to mind, as the sequel received a massive visual downgrade. In comparison, the first Dark Souls is still hauntingly beautiful, and has still hold up to this day.
 
Eh, Half-Life 1 was never a looker, while HL2 looked great.

Half-Life 1 was pretty ugly even for 1998.. those textures and original character models.

Half-Life 2 had amazing facial expression technology that was way ahead of anything else at the time, and some great art direction, but otherwise, it wasn't mind blowing either. Especially not with Far Cry being released the same year.
 

ChawlieTheFair

pip pip cheerio you slags!
Half-Life 1 was pretty ugly even for 1998.. those textures and original character models.

Half-Life 2 had amazing facial expression technology that was way ahead of anything else at the time, and some great art direction, but otherwise, it wasn't mind blowing either. Especially not with Far Cry being released the same year.

Half life 2 holds up far better than far cry 1 IMO
 
Half life 2 holds up far better than far cry 1 IMO

I actually feel the same way. But back in 2004 Far Cry had a much higher wow factor (at least for me) because the engine was doing a lot of visual eye candy tricks. But once you got over that, Half-Life 2 does hold up better because of its great art direction.

Doom 3 was kind of the same too, it had a lot of technical things with its lighting engine and normal maps, but I still prefer HL2 over it.
 
Top Bottom