Console evolution?

[cityside75]

I'm curious for everyone's thoughts on console "evolution" in a technical sense. In this case, I'm referring to the technical quality of games at the beginning versus the end of the console's life. Which console "evolved" the most? What about the least?

Here are my thoughts-

Most: SNES - The launch titles impressed with Mode 7 effects and the sheer size of Super Mario World, but as we saw, the console was capable of SO much more. By the end of its life, it had DK Country, Doom, Street Fighter Alpha, and a number of other games that most people wouldn't have even thought to be technically possible at the console's launch. It even competed pretty effectively against the next-gen of consoles while Nintendo dragged their heels with the N64.

Which brings me to the least evolved - N64 - In my opinion, nothing ever really surpassed Mario 64. I remember when the N64 launched with Mario 64, thinking how amazing games for the system would be in a few years, if Mario 64 was what they were able to come up with out of the gate. Instead, we ended up with the trademark "N64-ness" which stayed with the system to the end: blurry textures, limited sound, etc. Don't get me wrong, it had many good games, but I can't think of any that were a huge step up from what was launched with the system from a technical standpoint.

What does everyone else think?

[it290]

#1 would be the Neo-Geo, no question about it. Just compare the likes of 'Nam 1975 to Metal Slug 3 or Last Blade!

[chrisbid]

older consoles evolved, newer ones did not

the VCS and Intellivision grew exponentially during their lifespans, the NES, SMS, Genesis, and SNES grew quite a bit, but the PSX, N64, DC and current stuff havent improved much from launch.

[cityside75]

I'd disagree somewhat with you chrisbid. I think the PS2 has shown some evolution, especially on the graphics front. When it was launched, the general reaction was "no better than dreamcast." Lately, with GT4 and its HD resolutions, God of War, and a few other recent titles, the PS2 has surprised me with what it's capable of in the right hands.

[chrisbid]

I'd disagree somewhat with you chrisbid. I think the PS2 has shown some evolution, especially on the graphics front. When it was launched, the general reaction was "no better than dreamcast." Lately, with GT4 and its HD resolutions, God of War, and a few other recent titles, the PS2 has surprised me with what it's capable of in the right hands.


nowhere near the differences we saw on old machines. the 3D puppet figures have remained the same throughout this generation, people with keen eyes will notice slight improvements, but they arent evident under casual observation

[Graham Mitchell]

I think the Famicom/NES evolved to the most extreme degree I've ever seen. Without special chips and memory/mapper tricks, the NES isn't that much better than an intellivision, and if you look at the really early Famicom games (most of which never even came over here) like "Binary World" or "Bokusuka Wars" (cringes) that you find on those huge multicarts, that fact becomes apparent. The games looked like crap (most of them had a black background and were just plain ugly), and featured totally one-sided, simplistic gameplay. With the disk system, or cartridges loaded with memory, we started to see stuff liike Zelda (disk) or Ghosts 'N' Goblins (cart), which were a vast improvement on those earlier games, both aesthetically and content-wise. Even more time passes and we get deep, complex games like Legacy of the Wizard, Ultima Exodus, the Guardian Legend, and games that performed at a level that would seem impossible given the early Famicom library, like Crystalis, Super Mario Bros. 3, and Kirby's Adventure.

The famicom itself wasn't that great, but with all the improvements on putting the carts together, the system ended up having games that defied its original design.

[Berty]

I have to second the Neo Geo. No other console has had such a long commerical life span. The games just seemed to get bigger and better. Just look at how great Garou Mark of the Wolves is and Capcom vs SNK Chaos.

As far as the least evolved, then i would have to go with the n64 too. It just seems as though there was nothing that really stood out. Of-course their was goldeneye, mario 64, perfect dark etc. But the machine's line up was very narrowly focused on 3d platformers and other mediocore 3d affairs.

[Nez]

PC ;)

But definitly the Neo Geo, it just amazing what it was truly capable of during the end of its life.

[briguy578]

I'm going to have to agree with Graham Mitchell here, 100%. When you compare the 1983 Japanese launch titles with games like SMB 3, Zelda, or Castlevania, you woundn't believe they came out on the same system.

The two reasons for this, of course, where the massive increase in the size of NES carts [from 32KB to 512KB] and the addition of supplemental chips to the carts.

Anyways, in other categories:

System with the most wasted potental: Colecovision
System with the least improvement: Dreamcast

The Colecovision used the same microprocessor as the SMS, and as homebrewers have started to show, It had an absolutely massive amount of untapped potental. I'll even go as far as to say that, assuming someone figured out a good work-around for the scrolling issues, the Colecovision could have produced graphics better then the NES. Not to mention the wasted capacity it had for laserdisc-type games; we could have gotten Night Trap a whole 7 years earlier if the Laserdisc add-on had been released.

Now, the Dreamcast is a contentious nomination for least improved, especially here. And I know a lot of you will site its truncated life span, and say it could pull off modern PS2-type stuff if it got the chance. Firstly, it didn't, and all the games throughout its life look much the same. But its mainly for one reason: Soul Calibur. Looking at the Dreamcast specs and looking at this game convince me that the Dreamcast probably couldn't manage much better.

Anyway, thats my 3 cents.

[FurinkanianFrood]

The PS2 has evolved quite a bit, many early titles were ugly as sin.

Now they are about what they should have been. It still ain't more powerful than Dreamcast. That idea just came from manipulation of statistics, not to mention that the DC had insufficient time to evolve IMO.

The PC Engine evolved quite a bit from early HuCards to the arcade card stuff.

Neo Geo evolved an awful lot due to the increasing cartridge size.

The VCS. Evolved. A lot.

Graham is quite correct. The NES evolved more than people reralize. Look the early Japanese releases. Super Mario Bros wasn't a launch title there. Mario Bros was.

The SNES didn't so much evolve as some of the mistakes made with early games were corrected (Final Fight *cough*). Donkey Kong Country was a result of design rather than any new ways of tapping the hardware. Big colour palette + careful design. Of course hardware, code, and design should complement each other. The capabilities (number-wise) needed were never in doubt. They just hadn't been put o use that way. It is evolution of design, and programming is design also, and on some systems was no less creative.

The SNES just wasn't a the ideal arena for programming tricks because Nintendo designed it in a way that made them largely unnecessary.

[cityside75]

NES definitely showed a lot of improvement. When they released Donkey Kong, they claimed that they didn't have the space for all four (single screen) levels. Later on they released Super Mario 3 with how many long, complicated levels?

I'm surprised no one's suggested the 2600 yet. I believe that it was originally designed to play Pong derivatives primarily, but the game designers were able to pull some pretty amazing tricks out of that thing too.

Edit - FurinkanianFrood snuck the VCS in while I was typing this...