Check out this exciting video showing off the (nearly) year-by-year graphical evolution of the first person shooter genre. Starting in 1992 with what most consider the daddy of the modern FPS genre - Wolfenstein 3D, and ending with 2011's Battlefield 3. Do you agree with every selection the creator made? 2004's Doom 3 instead of Far Cry, Half-Life 2 or The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay? And are you able to fill in the gaps of 1994, 2006 and 2008 with significant newcomers to the genre? Notice how it gets harder and harder to tell if a game looks better than the previous one, the closer you come to the modern day. Has the FPS-genre stalled? Will there be no more huge leaps in graphical fidelity? Or are we just waiting for the next generation of consoles to kick-start the evolution again?
By the way, if you feel there's some offensive misses in this list, maybe this accompanying article might let you take a sigh of relief. It has just about every decent-looking shooter worth mentioning from 1992 till today. It's in French, but pictures don't lie.
Posted 04-03-2013, 20:49
Not just graphically. Half-Life 2, or the Source engine in general, still has some of the very best physics capabilities on the market.
And, dude, it's freaking Half-Life 2.
Still a good video though
Posted 03-03-2013, 23:15
I think graphically speaking, Half-Life 2 has had way more impact in hindsight than it did at first. For that fact, I would EASILY place it on the list rather than Doom 3.
Posted 03-03-2013, 22:29
I feel that a lot of very relevant things are missing. I mean come on, Half-Life 2...