Support NeoGAF

[Synth]

Got a better suggestion for 2006 than Gears? I fully admit in the OP that it's an odd choice.

Not really. I think Gears works fine simply because although PC's could have run it without breaking a sweat (which they did the following year), there wasn't really much that they actually had to run that year that was comparable. Oblivion and GRAW are the only other games that come to mind, and I'd probably still pick Gears over both of them.

The only year I have a real issue with is 2001. I don't think Wolfenstein even deserves a nomination here, let alone for it to have won that year. Both MGS2 and Halo destroy it imo, PC specs or not.

Some crappy examples there OP. Killzone 2 took a huge dump on Crysis when it came out, the lighting alone is a generation ahead, Uncharted 2 is no slouch either. Arma is demanding only it was badly coded and poorly optimized. Crysis 2 is another bad example, Killzone 3 raised the bar again and looked significantly better with larger levels and set pieces.

I'm glad Phediuk started this thread off and not you... holy shit...

 

[Mr Ed]

Well, it doesn't appear to actually be limited to the single most capable hardware (PC's could have run Gears in their sleep). I don't think Phediuk was very clear on that just now. From the examples in the OP, it's more like imagine every game each year ran on the most powerful hardware. Without the restraints, which would be the most impressive?

So something like Mario 64 on Model 3 wouldn't be considered, as it'd be very unimpressive.

But then i'd still consider something like Uncharted 2 over Arma. That trainride was technically mighty impressive. So much more than anything Arma showed. But thats just my opinion.

 

[Shion]

I think that RalliSport Challenge, Metroid Prime and Star Fox Adventures deserve a mention as 'runner-ups' for 2002.

Same goes for Project Gotham Racing 2, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Rogue Squadron III and F-Zero GX for 2003.

Hell, I'd argue that some of these games were more impressive than Splinter Cell.

 

[Synth]

But then i'd still consider something like Uncharted 2 over Arma. That trainride was technically mighty impressive. So much more than anything Arma showed. But thats just my opinion.

I didn't mention Uncharted 2 specifically because I know very little about Arma 2. Someone else will have to chime in here.

 

[Crisium]

Some people may be console fanboys, but don't let them veer you from the truth. Killzone 2 deserves 2009. Lighting, animations, physics, still the best AI, masterful motion blur. So it has some assets comparable to PC games from 2004? It does enough to make up for them.

 

[icecold1983]

Would you per chance load it up on your PC and post an example of it? I just uninstalled Crysis 1 about a week ago now.

my crysis 1 cd wont read anymore, so i installed warhead. if i remember correctly the animation was identical between the 2 in the areas we are discussing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwZQtiwc9X4

the first 2 kills of the video

edit - youtube is being annoying with editing. its at 1:55 and 2:05 since youtube seems to not want to process my trim.

 

[hal9001]

I feel 2015 is going to be a hard one to judge as there is going to be so much competition with the likes of Uncharted 4, The Witcher 3, MGS5 and The Order: 1886.

 

[Grizzo]

Major props for making this thread and putting out such an informative list, OP. I liked it and learned a lot about some games I had never heard of.

 

[KKRT00]

I feel 2015 is going to be a hard one to judge as there is going to be so much competition with the likes of Uncharted 4, The Witcher 3, MGS5 and The Order: 1886.

2015 is the easiest, because of Star Citizen.

MGS5 wont be even on the list with games like Battlefront and The Division also coming out this year

===

Some crappy examples there OP. Killzone 2 took a huge dump on Crysis when it came out, the lighting alone is a generation ahead, Uncharted 2 is no slouch either. Arma is demanding only it was badly coded and poorly optimized. Crysis 2 is another bad example, Killzone 3 raised the bar again and looked significantly better with larger levels and set pieces.

Wow, You have no clue what You are talking about. K3 didnt even had HDR or SSAO in gameplay, it also lost per-pixel object motion blur from KZ 2.

====

so is there a command that disables the supposed vegetation tessellation?

took pics of the same PADM tree

http://abload.de/img/1pmxpr.jpg
http://abload.de/img/2tql7u.jpg

Change the perspective to one from the top image. Its fresh tech and this was quite angle dependent implementation.

 

[iapetus]

Elite certainly does prove the thread wrong if we're talking in metrics other than pushing the most powerful hardware.

We're not talking in those metrics anyway, or there would be little to no variation in platforms in the 'other contenders' category, and no system past the first year of its life would be permitted entry - and obscenely overpriced PC systems would mean no consoles even being considered for any of the later years.

If we're talking in terms of the most technically impressive game, it is not always running on the most technically powerful hardware. In fact it seldom is - fixed hardware allows you to do much more impressive things sometimes, even more so back in the days when you really could squeeze every bit of power out of a system.

In it's simplest form, technically with Elite you had the largest open world game ever. You had a consistent world which 'remembered' things you did. Those were great technical achievements were they not? Let alone the fact it was in such a small file size.

Exactly. A massive open world 3D game is an incredible achievement for that time. When you put it up against hardware that's more powerful but is basically doing the same as Pole Position did years earlier, it's hard to claim the latter is more technically impressive.

 

[Mr Ed]

We're not talking in those metrics anyway, or there would be little to no variation in platforms in the 'other contenders' category, and no system past the first year of its life would be permitted entry - and obscenely overpriced PC systems would mean no consoles even being considered for any of the later years.

If we're talking in terms of the most technically impressive game, it is not always running on the most technically powerful hardware. In fact it seldom is - fixed hardware allows you to do much more impressive things sometimes, even more so back in the days when you really could squeeze every bit of power out of a system.

Thank you!

 

[Wabba]

I agree on this list a lot, but there is to much love for PC games, there definitely should be more console games. Killzone 2 raised the bar when it was released, the same did Uncharted 2. I also would put Driveclub far ahead Unity. Some places Unity looks breathtakingly good, but it is definitely not the most technically advanced game.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

Some crappy examples there OP. Killzone 2 took a huge dump on Crysis when it came out, the lighting alone is a generation ahead, Uncharted 2 is no slouch either. Arma is demanding only it was badly coded and poorly optimized. Crysis 2 is another bad example, Killzone 3 raised the bar again and looked significantly better with larger levels and set pieces.

oh yes, that magnificent PBR and GI showcased in full force...

 

[nelsonroyale]

2015 is the easiest, because of Star Citizen.

MGS5 wont be even on the list with games like Battlefront and The Division also coming out this year

===

Wow, You have no clue what You are talking about. K3 didnt even had HDR or SSAO in gameplay, it also lost per-pixel object motion blur from KZ 2.

Eh, tech wise sure. But these comparisons aren't ideal in the slightest. For instance the Order in terms of up close detail and the quality of the scene being rendered is more convincing than what I have seen of Star Citizen. It achieves a more convincing image.

Wait...Somebody Return to Castle Wolvenstein over MGS2? hahaha....the visuals in the former didnt impress me that much at all when I played it on PC. MGS2 had a much bigger impact.

 

[Phediuk]

We're not talking in those metrics anyway, or there would be little to no variation in platforms in the 'other contenders' category,

We absolutely are talking in those metrics, which is why the first 26 years of the thread are exclusively arcade games, and the only non-PC game mentioned in the last 12 years is Gears of War (and I fully invite anyone to suggest an alternative to Gears.)

If you have an issue with a particular game, by all means, bring it up, but don't pretend the platforms chosen have been inconsistent.

 

[Bl@de]

I didn't mention Uncharted 2 specifically because I know very little about Arma 2. Someone else will have to chime in here.

Well Arma 2 is the only mention that I don't really know. To be honest It may doesn't look great but the engine is certainly something:

This engine has full DirectX 9 support (Shader Model 3). It features realistic day-night cycles, changing weather, fog and visibility, and a view distance of up to 15 kilometres. Every weapon in the game fires projectiles with real trajectories, bullet drop, and penetration characteristics. As such, no weapon system in the game is "guaranteed" a hit – only after the engine has simulated the event can it be determined if a given shot or missile has hit the target.

And it takes place on an 225 square kilometres map that is based on satellite data with (if your PC can handle it) large scale battles.

Uncharted 2 has the "Wow" effect but I don't know if there is anything technologically interesting about the engine. Even if I love it ... it's a rather simple and linear shooter with a resolution of 720p and 2xAA.

This thread is not about what you like most, but about technology behind games. People tend to forget that somehow.

 

[KKRT00]

Eh, tech wise sure. But these comparisons aren't ideal in the slightest. For instance the Order in terms of up close detail and the quality of the scene being rendered is more convincing than what I have seen of Star Citizen. It achieves a more convincing image.

But You have not seen close-ups of Star Citizen yet. What You've seen is placeholder or experimental art.

They are aiming for higher quality than Ryse and they will be using upgraded TressFX tech for all hair.
This game will dominate tech this year, its not even a question. I wrote it quite few times, people really have no idea how first Squadron 42 trailer will blow their mind. If they didnt follow the development, they are just not prepared.

 

[mclem]

You are talking about game design/gameplay.

I'd argue that I'm not, I'm talking about technical advancement in software engineering. Which, admittedly, does tie in to game design - it inherently has to - but that is still a field ripe for technical advancement.

I nominated Exile earlier. That's a game that first appeared on 8-bit machines while 16-bit machines are around, but it's still a phenomenal feat of software engineering and miles ahead of its time. It's absolutely something I would regard as 'technically advanced'.

If this thread is actually about "The best games at pushing the graphical capabilities of each year", then fair enough. But that's not what the title says.

 

[Synth]

This thread is not about what you like most, but about technology behind games. People tend to forget that somehow.

Yea. It's a shame that a thread with very good intentions is seeing so many comment to the effect of "there's too many PC games in there, should be more console games". Well no, because the thread isn't about who made the best looking PS3 game of the year.

If the lack of Naughty Dog or whatever bugs some people that much, they should make a separate thread based around their own rules, where everyone can argue whether Mario Kart 8's pushing the Wii U more than Driveclub pushes a PS4... and then someone comes in with a ZX Spectrum game made in 2014, just for laughs.

 

[Phediuk]

If this thread is actually about "The best games at pushing the graphical capabilities of each year", then fair enough. But that's not what the title says.

True, the title doesn't say that, but the first line of the OP does.

 

[Asmodai48]

Some crappy examples there OP. Killzone 2 took a huge dump on Crysis when it came out, the lighting alone is a generation ahead, Uncharted 2 is no slouch either. Arma is demanding only it was badly coded and poorly optimized. Crysis 2 is another bad example, Killzone 3 raised the bar again and looked significantly better with larger levels and set pieces.

 

[mclem]

True, the title doesn't say that, but the first line of the OP does.

But Exile doesn't push the 'most powerful hardware' the furthest. It's still hugely technically advanced.

Maybe this thread needs a counterpart from a software engineering standpoint?

 

[goonergaz]

what about Jak & Daxter - no loading screens once in game was something technically impressive

 

[Jaagen]

We absolutely are talking in those metrics, which is why the first 26 years of the thread are exclusively arcade games, and the only non-PC game mentioned in the last 12 years is Gears of War (and I fully invite anyone to suggest an alternative to Gears.)

If you have an issue with a particular game, by all means, bring it up, but don't pretend the platforms chosen have been inconsistent.

Star Wars Rogue Squadron III: Rebel Strike should at least be a runner-up for 2003. Improved visuals over Rouge Leader as well as having the entire Rouge Leader incluuded in co-op mode. Oh, and it was 60 fps as well.

 

[iapetus]

We absolutely are talking in those metrics, which is why the first 26 years of the thread are exclusively arcade games, and the only non-PC game mentioned in the last 12 years is Gears of War (and I fully invite anyone to suggest an alternative to Gears.)

But by your measure, Gears isn't even in the discussion. Is XBox 360 the most powerful hardware that year? No. Disqualified.

Even if for some freakish reason the only games released for PC that year were text adventures and ASCII roguelikes, those games should win.

 

[mclem]

Even if for some freakish reason the only games released for PC that year were text adventures and ASCII roguelikes, those games should win.

As a brief aside: Supercomputers can trivially run a virtual machine designed specifically for the play of text adventures.

That is the most powerful hardware. It is a game. Therefore (for instance) 1998 should be Anchorhead, being the largest (I believe) Z-Machine game released that year. QED.

(Although to be fair, under that argument, I suspect you'd be hard-pushed to argue against nominating NetHack for every year since 1987)

 

[iapetus]

As a brief aside: Supercomputers can trivially run a virtual machine designed specifically for the play of text adventures.

That is the most powerful hardware. It is a game. Therefore (for instance) 1998 should be Anchorhead, being the largest (I believe) Z-Machine game released that year. QED.

It might not be the most powerful hardware for specific uses, though; for the special case of computer graphics specialised hardware may be more powerful than far more powerful *general* computing hardware.

For '91 we'd better see what the best game available for an SGI Indigo Elan was, though.

 

[Mr Ed]

We absolutely are talking in those metrics, which is why the first 26 years of the thread are exclusively arcade games, and the only non-PC game mentioned in the last 12 years is Gears of War (and I fully invite anyone to suggest an alternative to Gears.)

If you have an issue with a particular game, by all means, bring it up, but don't pretend the platforms chosen have been inconsistent.

Well, they are actually. Technically, by the rules you made, Gears can't be a 2006 winner. Xbox 360 was released in 2005. If it was not the most powerful platform then (it wasn't as Fear, a pc games was). It can't be the most powerful platform a year later, as its fixed hardware. Gears could never win 2006.

Edit:

Beaten, damn it.

 

[Phediuk]

But by your measure, Gears isn't even in the discussion. Is XBox 360 the most powerful hardware that year? No. Disqualified.

I've already been clear that Gears is a weird choice, so if you've got a better game for that slot, name it.

Even if for some freakish reason the only games released for PC that year were text adventures and ASCII roguelikes, those games should win.

Sure, it would be pretty lame if that happened, but it hasn't, so it's an irrelevant reductio-ad-absurdum.

 

[petran79]

Alright... you realise you're arguing this over this?

Seriously?

Sega Rally not only looked better than other games at the time, but introduced different surfaces affecting the cars handling. It's a very easy win for that year.

You were lost somewhere in the quotes my friend. My original answer was to the guy who mentioned an obscure 2d fighter from 1988

 

[Owwari]

I think Smash 3DS or Wii U should be the most technically advanced games for 2014.

Smash 3DS: A game that looks almost as good as brawl and runs at 60fps, with tons of content, on an extremely poor piece of hardware.

Smash Wii U: 8 player 60 fps action, with gorgeous visuals. Not a stutter even when complex items get involved.

You people have no limits I swear, holy.

 

[Jaagen]

You people have no limits I swear, holy.

Smash on the 3DS is still impressive though(the Wii U version looks smooth, but it's not that impressive considering it looks like a HD version of Brawl)

 

[Synth]

You were lost somewhere in the quotes my friend. My original answer was to the guy who mentioned an obscure 2d fighter from 1988

Hmm seems so. I just noticed that I read "It was perhaps the best looking fighting game for its time" as "It was perhaps the best looking game for its time". So thought you were suggesting it for 1995's slot.

That said though, I still think it looks kinda awful regardless of resolution, and with Killer Instinct 2 around that year on the 2D side, along with stuff like Fighting Vipers on the 3D side... I can't really even take "best looking fighting game" very seriously either.

 

[martino]

what about Jak & Daxter - no loading screens once in game was something technically impressive

didn't soul reaver do this first on ps1 ?
soul reaver does so much on this console...

 

[nelsonroyale]

But You have not seen close-ups of Star Citizen yet. What You've seen is placeholder or experimental art.

They are aiming for higher quality than Ryse and they will be using upgraded TressFX tech for all hair.
This game will dominate tech this year, its not even a question. I wrote it quite few times, people really have no idea how first Squadron 42 trailer will blow their mind. If they didnt follow the development, they are just not prepared.

I have seen quite a lot of the footage. It looks very impressive. The city footage they showed, which was indeed early, doesn't look as good as what has been shown in the Order to me at all. But it isn't really a fair comparison, it was a rather uninispiring futuristic flat-pack city on a rather barren looking world. Keeping on topic though, technically advanced does seem to be Star Citizen.

Best looking is another topic and obviously is going to attract more divisive opinions. If you take hardware constraints into account, I doubt SC will be the most impressive technological achievement, however. Personally, I expect U4 to impress me the most this year given the studios previous games.

 

[petran79]

@Synth

true true!But when I saw Skullgirls, I immediately thought about this crap game. I even manage to finish it back then. Windows 3.1 power...

 

[Sixfortyfive]

I clicked this thread just to make sure that Daytona got its due recognition.

You done good OP. That game felt like it was from a decade in the future when it was released.

 

[icecold1983]

2015 is the easiest, because of Star Citizen.

MGS5 wont be even on the list with games like Battlefront and The Division also coming out this year

===

Wow, You have no clue what You are talking about. K3 didnt even had HDR or SSAO in gameplay, it also lost per-pixel object motion blur from KZ 2.

====


Change the perspective to one from the top image. Its fresh tech and this was quite angle dependent implementation.

http://abload.de/img/38qumq.jpg

still doesnt look as good.

 

[iapetus]

I've already been clear that Gears is a weird choice, so if you've got a better game for that slot, name it.

Anything. Any PC game that came out that year fits the requirements better than a 360 game.

Civilization IV.
Corvette Evolution GT.
Geneforge 4: Rebellion.
OutRun 2006: Coast to Coast.
Rollercoaster Tycoon 3: Platinum.
The Secrets of Da Vinci: The Forbidden Manuscript.

Sure, it would be pretty lame if that happened, but it hasn't, so it's an irrelevant reductio-ad-absurdum.

As pointed out above, the SGI Indigo Elan was probably the most powerful hardware of its day when it came out. So yeah, it pretty much has.

The thing is, your fundamental premise - the most technically advanced game in a year is on the most powerful hardware of that year - is flawed. It's obviously flawed if you look at the lifecycle of fixed hardware, too. Because that fixed hardware doesn't hit its peak until two or three years into its life, at which point it's punching *way* above the weight it did on launch. But by your measure it's only eligible in that first year when it *isn't* doing technically impressive things.

 

[Phediuk]

Anything. Any PC game that came out that year fits the requirements better than a 360 game.

Civilization IV.
Corvette Evolution GT.
Geneforge 4: Rebellion.
OutRun 2006: Coast to Coast.
Rollercoaster Tycoon 3: Platinum.
The Secrets of Da Vinci: The Forbidden Manuscript.

None of those games beats Oblivion, though, which is the current "other contender".

As pointed out above, the SGI Indigo Elan was probably the most powerful hardware of its day when it came out. So yeah, it pretty much has.

Obviously we're talking gaming hardware here, not workstations, not mainframes, not supercomputers, not NASA simulations or whatever. If that's what interests you, go check out the TOP500 list. I did not think I would even need to specify this in a Neogaf thread, but I will add it to the OP if you feel that being specifically about video game hardware would clarify things some more.

 

[Celine]

Another notable mention for 1993 is Magic Edge by Paradigm Simulation for Namco:

http://www.system16.com/hardware.php?id=832

 

[Synth]

None of those games beats Oblivion, though, which is the current "other contender".

Obviously we're talking gaming hardware here, not workstations, not mainframes, not supercomputers, not NASA simulations or whatever. If that's what interests you, go check out the TOP500 list. I did not think I would even need to specify this in a Neogaf thread, but I will add it to the OP if you feel that being specifically about video game hardware would clarify things some more.

I think you should really leave out the "most powerful hardware" qualifier, as that's really what's causing the contradictions being your thread rules and the selections you've chosen.

As I stated before, if you just envision it as every game magically ran off exactly the same hardware each year, which would you vote?

This helps to clarify that something like Mario 64 isn't viable as either it is unimpressive on this fictional standardised hardware, or Virtua Fighter 3 is the most godlike achievement in human history. This also allows for examples such as MGS2, Halo, Shenmue or Gears as even an identical PC implementation for each would stand out amongst other PC titles at the time.

Oh, and Elite would qualify...

 

[Dictator93]

my crysis 1 cd wont read anymore, so i installed warhead. if i remember correctly the animation was identical between the 2 in the areas we are discussing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwZQtiwc9X4

Thx for doing that.
Are you saying, that these two hit and death animations...
http://a.pomf.se/vbtspc.webm
http://a.pomf.se/qrofdm.webm
are the same as these?

i would obviously like to hear secondary opinions from other gaffers, but, I must say, I am not seeing any simularity. And knowing the systems behind the two, I also know that it is impossible... Crysis 1 and Warhead have hit animations where the part of the body just has a physicalized hit added to it. It is not a reaction animation being spontaneously played. Likewise, shooting a korean to death in Crysis 1 does not yield an animation played upon death, but just applies force to the point of impact and the korean soldier ragdolls with that previous force applied. Hence how the koreans in the webms above have their legs spread each time they fall over, they basically are a physics puppet as soon as they die.

Crysis 2 on the other hand has a hit reaction animation system that combines with those physics. So you see the soldier in the gif above get shot, rebound to the screen left, hit the boxes, rebound forward, get shot again and then collapse face forward in an animation. WHILST his arm is physicalized and upper torso are physicalized. The part which betrays its existence as an animation and not being fully physicalized is given away by the fact that he falls knee first, unlike in the Crysis 1 shots above.

Also I am pretty sure the NPC soldier skeleton is different in both games and they basically share little to no animations.

 

[iapetus]

None of those games beats Oblivion, though, which is the current "other contender".

Sure. All of them beat any XBox 360 game, though, as does whatever version of Angband was released that year.

is more technically bleeding edge than

 

[Phediuk]

Sure. All of them beat any XBox 360 game, though, as does whatever version of Angband was released that year.

is more technically bleeding edge than

I'm not adding Angband as a contender, but I'll remove Gears if you have any good-faith suggestions for 2006, i.e., possible alternatives to Oblivion. It really is the odd game out in this thread.

 

[KKRT00]

I have seen quite a lot of the footage. It looks very impressive. The city footage they showed, which was indeed early, doesn't look as good as what has been shown in the Order to me at all. But it isn't really a fair comparison, it was a rather uninispiring futuristic flat-pack city on a rather barren looking world. Keeping on topic though, technically advanced does seem to be Star Citizen.

What about ocean covered planet with enormous waves with a city in the middle?

Have You seen new damage tech? Almost anything You've seen is more early than pre-early.

 

[Synth]

I'm not adding Angband as a contender, but I'll remove Gears if you have any good-faith suggestions for 2006, i.e., possible alternatives to Oblivion. It really is the odd game out in this thread.

I don't like where this is heading lol. Wouldn't this also necessitate the removal of all other contenders that are any platform other than the strongest (unless that platform is basically equivalent to the strongest)?

Seems a bit like your reservations for including Elite are causing the entire premise of the thread to unravel upon itself tbh.

It all seemed so simple initially.

 

[Acrylic7]

Some crappy examples there OP. Killzone 2 took a huge dump on Crysis when it came out, the lighting alone is a generation ahead, Uncharted 2 is no slouch either. Arma is demanding only it was badly coded and poorly optimized. Crysis 2 is another bad example, Killzone 3 raised the bar again and looked significantly better with larger levels and set pieces.

I love Killzone 2 more than just about anyone but all of this is flat wrong bro.

 

[Joohanh]

guys

hey guys

this thread is not called "what playstation game you fapped most furiously to each year"

 

[Phediuk]

I don't like where this is heading lol. Wouldn't this also necessitate the removal of all other contenders that are any platform other than the strongest (unless that platform is basically equivalent to the strongest)?

Seems a bit like your reservations for including Elite are causing the entire premise of the thread to unravel upon itself tbh.

It all seemed so simple initially.

Not really. 1998-2002 are the only years in which the most powerful hardware is debatable.