Tekken Tag wasn't the only launch game though. As mentioned, SSX looked pretty damn good.

Tekken Tag was just a rushed piece of crap--i.e. the typical Namco launch game.

exactly


if you look at tekken 3 on the PS1, theres really NOT that much of an increase


edit : you can't really make generalizations about namco, considering Soul Caliber 1 looked MAGNIFICENT on the Dreamcast

Dude I for one thought Tekken Tag was freakin awesome. Not necessarily graphically awesome but I loved the game. I still occasionally play it when Tekken 5 pisses me off too much.

yea, they took out my Baek, so I really lean towards that one myself

Agreed. I heart Tekken Tag. No one to play it with anymore, though. I played it at the arcade before, though. Tekken Tag on the PS2 actually looked a lot better than the arcade version (which was virtually identical to Tekken 3).

Are you fucking kidding me?

(ignoring the fact that we're comparing one of the best looking PS1 games with one of the worst looking PS2 games), the PS2 Tekken looks way better, and is in fact, quite an increase:

TEKKEN 3



TEKKEN TAG



It's much more of an increase than the best looking Xbox1 games look compared to poor 360 games - you should try Black on the 360 on an HDTV, and if you didn't know, you could mistake it for a 360 game - and in some spots, it actually looks better than, say, Perfect Dark. NO ONE is going to be mistaking Tekken Tag for Tekken 3.

I think the upgrade was more than just "slightly prettier". We went from square-fake looking characters of the PSX, to the realistic looking characters of the PS2. That is a big difference.

PSX

PS2


It's very easy to see the big graphical jump in fighing games from the PS to PS2 generation. Now if you were to look at 'Dead or Alive Ultimate' (Xbox) up against 'Dead or Alive 4' (Xbox 360), the difference is much less dramatic.

[QUOTE=slop101]No there were NOT - not even close.

The difference in graphics capability for the systems is like so:
(regadless of what kind of TV you're using)
PS1/N64

I think there is always that kind of criticism and launch.

Looking back in hindsite, and using the images above, it's pretty clear that the jump from the best looking PS1 games to the PS2 was pretty big (looking at Tekken 3 to Tekken Tag, much less Tekken 5 or Soul Calibur 2 or 3).

And I think it's just as clear to steal the above example, that that DOA Ultimate to DOA4 comparison shows the leap isn't as great this time--though it is still a decent jump.

Just diminishing returns since it is a big price increase for a lesser jump.

But some disagree that it's a lesser jump, and that's fine. Not going to argue the point, it just looks lesser to me (even on my Bro's nice Dell LCD HD set).

I remember the launch just fine (I got my PS2 on launch date), and I was plenty impressed by the leap from the PS1 to the PS2 in graphics alone, that I didn't really notice that it was really lacking any thing in size and scope - I thought we were just talking about pure graphic-power and the jump from the previous system's later, more polished games compared to the new system's first-year games. And in that case, this leap just isn't as huge as the last one.

I can't think of a single 3D PS1 game I could stand looking at. I swear the PS1 could barely do 3D. The 3D capabilities were so weak. Unless you want to call Final Fantasy 3D. That's pretty much the extent of it. I think the only 3D PS1 games I have are FF, DQ7 (haha, 3D, barely), and I used to have Tekken 3.

There's plenty of 3D PS2 games I enjoyed, though.

Hot Damn!!

Exactly.

And just to nail this point home, here's an HD shot of DoA Ultimate from the first Xbox, followed by a shot of DoA4 on the 360:

Xbox


360




Not nearly as drastic as the Tekken difference, now is it?