Support NeoGAF

[Synth]

Not even going into details, the whole list being about arcade or pc, let's say it shows a particular vision of what technically advanced means to begin with.

Does that mean the most power eating ? its seems so. After that it's subjective.
For example the last 2d view game quoted is from 1978. That means any "technically-advanced" game after that had to be 3D or fake 3D right. No 2D games were even potentially advanced in term of coding or display i guess. Cause it was already odl school in 79 i guess.

And even with 3D games, Wave Race 64 could still win an all time technical award for example.

What i mean is that list is highly subjective and reflect a certain inclination toward certain games, culturally, to begin with.

Yea, to an extent its subjective, but I think "most technically advanced" isn't really very vague in the context of the OP. 2D games aren't very prominent because even though we made continuous improvements over the years, nearly all of what we use even today in regards to 2d graphics was basically "solved" early on, and we simply ended up with bigger sprites and more frames. One the 3D side we were making huge leaps year on year in a way that 2D simply wasn't doing.

OP is looking at the entries as if there were completely divorced from the hardware they ran on. A good way to look at it is to take the most capable hardware of that year, and imagine every game ran on it. So for 1996 you'd take the Model 3 board, and imagine that you line up three of them and on each you have Quake, Virtua Fighter 3, and Wave Race all looking exact as they did on their respective hardware at the time. Under these circumstances, I certainly wouldn't imagine people would be clamoring to give Wave Race the all-time technical award, and so it gets eliminated from that years standings.

The premise of the thread is pretty simple, and introducing the considerations of each individual platform just makes a mess of everything, as the best looking game on each platform could be argued as the most technically advanced, because there's no other more advanced game on that platform to disprove it. Remove the hardware consideration and many years have a very clear standout.. which the OP's done a good job of rounding up.

 

[tribal24]

Nah, Killzone 2 is impressive, but Crysis was released 2007 lol. Killzone 2's A.I. on the other hand was award winning.

lol forgot about Crysis

 

[Illucio]

I'm shocked to not see Mario 64 not even mentioned, that game has been the basis of 3D graphics and overall platforming for years, and was a complete milestone for most games of it's era. (I wasn't a huge fan of the game itself, but it's hard not to ignore it's significance.)

 

[HTupolev]

OP is looking at the entries as if there were completely divorced from the hardware they ran on. A good way to look at it is to take the most capable hardware of that year, and imagine every game ran on it. So for 1996 you'd take the Model 3 board, and imagine that you line up three of them and on each you have Quake, Virtua Fighter 3, and Wave Race all looking exact as they did on their respective hardware at the time. Under these circumstances, I certainly wouldn't imagine people would be clamoring to give Wave Race the all-time technical award, and so it gets eliminated from that years standings.

The premise of the thread is pretty simple, and introducing the considerations of each individual platform just makes a mess of everything, as the best looking game on each platform could be argued as the most technically advanced, because there's no other more advanced game on that platform to disprove it. Remove the hardware consideration and many years have a very clear standout.. which the OP's done a good job of rounding up.

Where it gets weird, though, is how we deal with sophistication versus throughput. Part of why people have suggested KZ2, for instance, is that it was doing very interesting types of things. It doesn't do it at high resolutions, or smooth framerates, or with low latencies, but it was very modern and advanced in 2009. Or at least that's an issue if we're just looking at the thread title; the OP sort of deals with that by stating the "powerful hardware" thing.

 

[lazygecko]

I'm shocked to not see Mario 64 not even mentioned, that game has been the basis of 3D graphics and overall platforming for years, and was a complete milestone for most games of it's era. (I wasn't a huge fan of the game itself, but it's hard not to ignore it's significance.)

About that...

 

[Synth]

Eh. Drawing a pretty box with a somewhat fixed point of view with a fixed number of characters just seems limited in what they are trying to do technically. The animation and modeling was definitely impressive though.

Racers are just sort of an extension of that although I give them a lot more cred.

The point of view isn't fixed as the characters could shift it to pretty much any angle. The stages contained a ridiculous amount of geometry for the time, had insane lighting, had what looks like the first advance shading in a 3d game etc. There's basically nothing Quake 2, let alone Quake 1 has over it from a graphical standpoint.

I'm shocked to not see Mario 64 not even mentioned, that game has been the basis of 3D graphics and overall platforming for years, and was a complete milestone for most games of it's era. (I wasn't a huge fan of the game itself, but it's hard not to ignore it's significance.)

Mario 64's contribution was primarily its control system. In terms of graphics, Daytona USA did basically every aspect better three years prior.

A game's "significance" isn't the topic here. Mario 64 has no place in this thread for 1996.

 

[Oracle Dragon]

Good list, but 1992 seems like it should be either Ultima Underworld or Ultima 7, if not the winner, at least a solid contender.

I don't think there was anything comparable to Ultima 7 on release... full screen open world, full mouse driven interface, everything in the game represented as an object you could interact with ("gumps" they called it IIRC) and can be dragged/dropped around. There are modern games that still don't offer feature parity with Ultima 7. It was so far ahead of it's time that you can play it today (in something like Exult) and not really find yourself wanting for features.

 

[Synth]

Where it gets weird, though, is how we deal with sophistication versus throughput. Part of why people have suggested KZ2, for instance, is that it was doing very interesting types of things. It doesn't do it at high resolutions, or smooth framerates, or with low latencies, but it was very modern and advanced in 2009. Or at least that's an issue if we're just looking at the thread title; the OP sort of deals with that by stating the "powerful hardware" thing.

I don't really wanna get into 2009 too much, as I'm unfamiliar was Arma 2... but the issue with stuff like Killzone 2 generally, is that those advanced things generally apply to optimisations more than the tech itself. Consider that Crysis is 2007, and what that offered in comparison to anything on any console. Killzone 2 stands out far more as an accomplishment of what they got from a PS3, than it does in an open arena where you imagine it having a PC release.

 

[Celine]

I saw this image in my first run through but I didn't notice you mentioned it was a 1988 game.

That's looks impressive but when I see it in action I'm underwhelmed by various instances of animation like the ways hit detection occurs. The models are great but this feels like a cheat analogous to the FMV games of the 90s.

Not bad but not exceptional enough.
.

It "cheat" as much as a Mortal Kombat game would.
I think this is game worth mentioning ( but I agree with OP that Namco first 3d game was the biggest achievent that year.

For a reference keep in mind that the first Street Fighter was released in 1987 and was the state of art for 2d graphics:

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

This PDF on Killzone 2's A.I. is tripping me out at the moment lol. Guerrilla Games are extensive if nothing else.

http://www.guerrilla-games.com/presentations/VUA07_Verweij_Hierarchically-Layered-MP-Bot_System.pdf

Unrelated to the thread at hand mind you, but I think this is a decent place for mention lol. It dives a bit into systems used in other games as well.

 

[Instro]

To me the only thing that's up in the air is Gears of War. The PC versions Oblivion, GRAW, and Prey are pretty notable.

 

[mclem]

Just looking at the first-person space, Ultima Underworld 2 came out in 1993 and was more advanced than Doom (you could look up!), and System Shock blew Doom 2 out of the water in 1994.

I think the different games engines had different merits. Fairly sure the UW-engine games could only have 8 directions of wall, whereas Doom could have any angle. On the other hand, UW had looking up and looking down. UW had true floors above floors, but I don't think it had any lifts, unlike Doom.

 

[MrCunningham]

Good list, but 1992 seems like it should be either Ultima Underworld or Ultima 7, if not the winner, at least a solid contender.

1992 should also have Comanche: Maximum Overkill as a mention.

I don't think you really appreciate just how badly Virtua Fighter 3 murdered everything that year.

This is Quake in 1996


Now take another look at the vid of Virtua Fighter 3 in the OP.

Quake was impressive in 1996 for its ability to render polygon environments at reasonably fast speeds in software rendering mode on a PC and its use of environmental lightmaps. Something that wasn't used in games before Quake. But it was far from the technological wonderment of Virtua Fighter 3 in the arcades.

But the thing with Quake is, it didn't have hardware accelerated support until 1997, with QuakeGL.

 

[SonicKnights]

 

[jett]

That's Virtua Fighter 5, man.

And that's an emulated shot of Super Mario 64, dude.

 

[mclem]

Doom is 1993. It was state of the art for games you could play at home but still not nearly as advanced as Model 2's 3D textured graphics (at 60fps even).

Graphically, maybe, but there's the small factor that Daytona is doing a lot less than Doom. IT's doing something simple in a very pretty way. Doom is doing something more complex in a slightly less pretty way. Which is the more "technically-advanced"?

 

[Synth]

That's Virtua Fighter 5, man.

And that's an emulated shot of Super Mario 64, dude.

lol...

if VF5 was 1996, then we'd have failed as a species since.

 

[SonicKnights]

That's Virtua Fighter 5, man.

And that's an emulated shot of Super Mario 64, dude.

I put the wrong one up, sorry.

 

[SystemUser]

I'm shocked to not see Mario 64 not even mentioned, that game has been the basis of 3D graphics and overall platforming for years, and was a complete milestone for most games of it's era. (I wasn't a huge fan of the game itself, but it's hard not to ignore it's significance.)

Mario didn't do anything special as far as 3D render goes though. What made it special was design decisions. The character and camera control were innovative, but that is design not tech. Mario 64 came out in 1996. Are you honestly going to argue that Mario 64 does things with 3d render that Sega arcade games where leaps and bound ahead of? Look up Sega Super GT videos.

Graphically, maybe, but there's the small factor that Daytona is doing a lot less than Doom. IT's doing something simple in a very pretty way. Doom is doing something more complex in a slightly less pretty way. Which is the more "technically-advanced"?

Have you actually played both games? You really think the original Doom from 1993 was doing more than Daytona USA? How many polygons was Doom pushing? Maybe a few hundred? I bet Daytona USA uses more than one hundred polygons on each car. How much physics was Doom doing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EkAVmBVmVE

 

[mclem]

One further 'for your consideration" of a game that did something advanced behind the scenes, even if it didn't look so hot:

1987: Midi Maze. Run around a 3D maze shooting other faces.

Had network play. In 1987.

 

[RedSwirl]

Yeah for 1996 I'm gonna have to hand it to VF3.

Gameplay-wise Mario 64 was a goddamn marvel, but the one thing that really sealed it was its control interface. If you wanna talk purely about 3D graphics, VF3 was on a whole other level. I still remember first playing it in the arcade. It looked real, and looking back I'm shocked to remember that was the same year SM64 came out.

 

[Synth]

Graphically, maybe, but there's the small factor that Daytona is doing a lot less than Doom. IT's doing something simple in a very pretty way. Doom is doing something more complex in a slightly less pretty way. Which is the more "technically-advanced"?

I'd argue that DooM's doing something far more simple... but in a complex way (for performance reasons).

Daytona USA is fully 3d, has a physics based handling model, has cosmetic damage, has the option for tire wear, has complex structures that you can collide with, has 4 view you can dynamically switch between (seamlessly too) etc.

DooM is much simpler in pretty much any way I can think of. It's more the miracle of having it run on what it actually did run on that made it a big deal.

 

[jett]

Graphically, maybe, but there's the small factor that Daytona is doing a lot less than Doom. IT's doing something simple in a very pretty way. Doom is doing something more complex in a slightly less pretty way. Which is the more "technically-advanced"?

What in the world. Are you even familiar with Daytona USA?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ngyCcbF1o

Watch at 60fps.

The list is already heavily slanted to PC games and apparently that's not enough for some people.

 

[Shivvy_NTL]

I feel that consoles and pc should have a seperate thread for this, there were some "technically advanced" games like gow3 and kz2

 

[Broank]

I would easily put Shenmue for 1999 imo.

I mean I actually played a hell of a lot of Quake 3, UT, SC at the time and didn't really think anything of them where as Shenmue the instant I saw a video of Ryo walking around the city my jaw just about hit the floor. Then playing it and realizing all the detail, the atmosphere of the day night cycle, the weather, examining all the items, all the NPCs walking around doing their business then going home at night, 640x480p w/ vga box, playing arcade games, the detail down to earwax on the little interactive talking heads demos, man that was crazy.

Nothing before or since has blown me away like that.

 

[MrCunningham]

What in the world. Are you even familiar with Daytona USA?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ngyCcbF1o

Watch at 60fps.

The list is already heavily slanted to PC games and apparently that's not enough for some people.

Well, that video is a bit of a bullshot as the original arcade game only ran at 496x384 resolution at 57FPS. But don't get me wrong, Daytona USA is still the most technologically advanced game of 1993 hands down. There was nothing else in the arcades or at home that could compete with Model 2.

And also keep in mind, that the original Doom had a maximum resolution of 320x200.and looked much worse than what most people tend to remember. That's the thing with some PC games, they evolve with better hardware.

 

[mclem]

I'd argue that DooM's doing something far more simple... but in a complex way (for performance reasons).

Daytona USA is fully 3d, has a physics based handling model, has cosmetic damage, has the option for tire wear, has complex structures that you can collide with, has 4 view you can dynamically switch between (seamlessly too) etc.

DooM is much simpler in pretty much any way I can think of. It's more the miracle of having it run on what it actually did run on that made it a big deal.

Four-player network play (both competitive and co-operative), (simple) AI for a potentially-large quantity of enemies, an engine that can take arbitrary level data and run it, moving environmental elements, that utterly bizarre three-screen mode that fascinates me although I doubt anyone actually used it, demo recording/importing functionality

I think that's quite a lot of groundbreaking technology. In vastly different directions to Daytona (and, as an aside, you could probably mention the network play there, too - far more advanced than "has cosmetic damage"!), but it's still original, interesting, and advanced.

 

[Ziffles]

Well, that video is a bit of a bullshot as the original arcade game only ran at 496x384 resolution at 57FPS. But don;t get me wrong, Daytona USA is still the most technologically advanced game of 1993 hands down. There was nothing else in the arcades or at home that could compete with Model 2.

It also didn't have the bilinear filtering that the emulator added in.

 

[Synth]

Four-player network play (both competitive and co-operative), (simple) AI for a potentially-large quantity of enemies, an engine that can take arbitrary level data and run it, moving environmental elements, that utterly bizarre three-screen mode that fascinates me although I doubt anyone actually used it, demo recording/importing functionality

I think that's quite a lot of groundbreaking technology. In vastly different directions to Daytona (and, as an aside, you could probably mention the network play there, too - far more advanced than "has cosmetic damage"!), but it's still original, interesting, and advanced.

Hey! I only mentioned the cosmetic damage because it was based on the impact speed and angle. The graphical effect is secondary.

 

[icecold1983]

Question, do they look poor to you? I can undertand not think they are the best thing ever. But do they look poor?

yes, but i want to clarify im speaking only of animation, not graphics. they dont animate at all realistically by video game standards. the first one is clearly the worst and i have no idea what that animation is even trying to represent, but i remember that exact animation from crysis 1 because i would cringe every time i saw it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPL6kfm8Ai4

just worlds beyond any crysis game IMO, the animations actually have a sense of gravity and weight. this game also came out in 2009. it also isnt nearly the best animation, i just remember them releasing this video for it. theres other games that are pretty far ahead of this from the same generation.

 

[SystemUser]

I feel that consoles and pc should have a seperate thread for this, there were some "technically advanced" games like gow3 and kz2

I think it is more interesting to see it altogether. This is like old MMA with no weight class. This way we get the best of the best each year instead of instead of seeing the best 114 lbs Karate expert in 1994. It is interesting to see the top dog go from arcade to console to PC.


I guess it might be interesting to do another thread with everything broken down by platform and genre. Some people are saying that it is unfair to compare fighting and racing games to other genres. Maybe there could be a few major groupings: Racers, Fighters, Shooters, and Other. Also it might be good to have other tech categories: Most pixels per second, Most sprites, Most Polygons, Most On-screen character/objects. Something like that.

 

[UnrealEck]

I was thinking of Outcast but was thinking it was called Giants. I saw Outcast listed and remembered that's what it was, then saw Giants right under it.
I agree with all of them from Outcast onwards. Can't really say before that.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Just want to post "holy shit" at Winning Run. Those graphics in 1988? That's nuts.

 

[Theognosis]

Those doesn't mean they are technically advanced, both games actually have pretty simple graphics, especially the Wii U version.

But Smash could very well be the most difficult one to develop with all things considered like programming to the metal and low-level hardware planning. On the other hand, most of the new PC games on the list were created using sandbox software and--in my opinion--credit should go the middleware itself, not to the games that were created using it.

Generally speaking, I am more impressed in games that were developed in the classical way than those games which were merely developed or rather presented using game engines.

 

[UnrealEck]

cryteks "tech trailers" that have released alongside each crysis game are not representative of the actual game. the one you linked is sort of an exception because its mostly console footage which is somewhat representative, but the single pc scene in the beginning is well beyond anything in crysis 2.

Well beyond the PC version of Crysis 2?
I can't take your posts seriously. You have a GTX 980?

 

[icecold1983]

Well beyond the PC version of Crysis 2?
I can't take your posts seriously. You have a GTX 980?

yep

 

[staticneuron]

No way. KZ and UC2 might be more aesthetically pleasing games,but in terms of graphics, open-world scale, and AI, ArmA 2 beats the shit out of them, and probably most action games made since. Sure it's janky as fuck, but the ArmA/OpFlash franchise attempts more than basically any other military shooter even dreams of.



Console games are rarely the most technically advanced.

I think that is what people are contesting. While it is easy to give the open world crown and the AI to Arma because of the genre and the fact that it is a SIM on a PC but that is ignoring the technical achievements made to bring those experiences to consoles that also helped the industry when brought to some PC based games later on.

 

[RedSwirl]

I think that is what people are contesting. While it is easy to give the open world crown and the AI to Arma because of the genre and the fact that it is a SIM on a PC but that is ignoring the technical achievements made to bring those experiences to consoles that also helped the industry when brought to some PC based games later on.

Thus the case for splitting up this discussion between PC gaming and console/arcade gaming.

 

[Speevy]

Wouldn't overcoming hardware limitations that condemn most games to muddy, sub-20 FPS messes be technically impressive?

 

[trixx]

great list. is metroid prime up there for 2002? That game and halo was probably the most impressive games I had seen at the time. Wasn't exposed to the pc

 

[FLAguy954]

I feel that consoles and pc should have a seperate thread for this, there were some "technically advanced" games like gow3 and kz2

Thus the case for splitting up this discussion between PC gaming and console/arcade gaming.

It seems like you both are really bothered that the OP lists games that are the most technically-advanced, in general, regardless of the hardware, for each year (it is even the title of the thread). That means that it is most likely going to be a list full of arcade and PC games as consoles barely had an opportunity to outdo those platforms very often.

yes, but i want to clarify im speaking only of animation, not graphics. they dont animate at all realistically by video game standards. the first one is clearly the worst and i have no idea what that animation is even trying to represent, but i remember that exact animation from crysis 1 because i would cringe every time i saw it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPL6kfm8Ai4

just worlds beyond any crysis game IMO, the animations actually have a sense of gravity and weight. this game also came out in 2009. it also isnt nearly the best animation, i just remember them releasing this video for it. theres other games that are pretty far ahead of this from the same generation.

I completely disagree. The animations in Crysis 2 match or excess those found in Killzone 2. That doesn't take away from the amazing animations found in Killzone 2, however.

 

[Mory Dunz]

If you're getting a shot off google and the UI is 10x more blurry than the actual game, you should know somethings wrong.


About Mario anyway, how does Sunshine compare to whatever year it came out?

EDIT: Google'd
Eh, looks alright. It had good water at least. It came out in 2002 so it probably doesn't compare to Unreal.

 

[SirMossyBloke]

The thread title is technically advanced, yet you put Assassins Creed Unity, which is a technical mess. Pretty graphics plagued with glitches around just about every corner.

 

[Tricky I Shadow]

No Shenmue?! No GAF, just....no.

 

[To Far Away Times]

Winning Run in 1988 is blowing my mind.

 

[SparkTR]

The thread title is technically advanced, yet you put Assassins Creed Unity, which is a technical mess. Pretty graphics plagued with glitches around just about every corner.

So was Crysis when it initially released, still was doing amazing things with its tech much like ACU.

 

[Phediuk]

Well, this thread got a lot of posts.

Thank you to everyone who pointed out that I put a Crysis 2 shot in Crysis 3's space. Replacing.

Also, adding Metal Gear Solid 2 and Gran Turismo 3 as contenders for 2001. That year was the peak for consoles at far as competitiveness for this thread is concerned.

 

[dragonflys545]

Lol at Unity... I'm playing the game right now and it's just a mess of a game graphically and gameplay.

 

[nib95]

Well, this thread got a lot of posts.

Thank you to everyone who pointed out that I put a Crysis 2 shot in Crysis 3's space. Replacing.

Also, adding Metal Gear Solid 2 and Gran Turismo 3 as contenders for 2001. That year was the peak for consoles at far as competitiveness for this thread is concerned.

Driveclub is the biggest omission imo.

 

[SirMossyBloke]

So was Crysis when it initially released, still was doing amazing things with its tech much like ACU.

Unity's tech doesn't work properly. I don't think that should be considered the best, do you? Being pretty doesn't = most advanced.