Very noticable difference, but you could have at least used Uncharted 3. 

It's true that each generation is going to be a smaller jump, but launch titles on every generation don't ever push you to believe the next generation is that much better.  The sixth generation launch looked quite a bit better than the prior generation, but going to sixth to seventh, most games were barely improved on what we've already seen.  This next generation, launch games look exponentially better than the leap last generation made. 

Basically.  If you bought a 360 at launch.  Graphics were hardly an upgrade from what you were playing on previous consoles.

Kameo.  A launch title on the Xbox 360.

Dragon Quest 8 for the PS2.

Perfect Dark Zero for 360.  Edited to a different picture because the one I originally placed was a bullshot. 

Black for Xbox/PS2.  Same here.

Using DQ8 and God of War 2 is unfair. Games are so beautiful.

As I said to CGI-qualtiy the pics in my OP was more of a reference (to the previous gens) than actual evidence, because I know the pics would not accurately represent the games (for better or worse). Just like I can tell in your pic of MGS that it is an emulated version because the ps1 texture quality was not that good ( I don't the ps1 had Bi-linear filtering or whatever its called).

That trailer was running on a PS3/360 specs PC.  Kojima said that it was not running on nextgen hardware; and that it would looks so much better on PS4/XBO.   IF you look carefully through the trailer the shadows are shit, the grass is pixelated; the hair is grainny; and the lack of polygons in some objects is quite notorious.   For a PS3/360 is quite impressive; but for "next-gen" looks a bit horrid.  I am glad kojima confirmed it was not nextgen footage.

http://www.psu.com/a019845/Hideo-Kojima-says-Metal-Gear-Solid-V-will-look-even-better-on-PS4-Xbox-One

Using Uncharted 3 would not made sense, as comparing Forza 5 and Horizon didn't made any sense. You can't compare a launch title with one of the last titles in the gen. The jump from PS2 to 3 looks way lower if you compare Black to Resistance 1 or COD 3. He shoud have used PGR or Forza 2 versus Forza 5 and so on. U3 blows U1 graphics out of the water, but PS4/X1 games in 2018 will beat the 2013 games with ease too, so we have to compare launch games with launch games, latter games with latter games and so on.

Another mistake is comparing static images. A lot of shots from current games are simply bullshots, like the ones he used for Infamous and Horizon, that don't look nowhere as good as showed. Gameplay videos are a more decent comparison, but even then the videos don't show several important aspects because the compression does a lot of damage.

The size of the images is other problem. Any game looks good in a tiny screenshot of 400x300 or in a GIF. Now try playing MGS4 in a 40 inch TV and compare with MGS5. The textures are pure shit, everything is blurry. It looked great in 2008, but is way worser than these next gen graphics.

The jump is always smaller because the improved technics are always more subtle, but the thread is trying to make the jump looks smaller than it really is. A good example of what is happening is the following comparison of Resistance 2 and Crysis 3 on PC max settings that I made right now.

Judging by these shots, Crysis doesn't looks much better than the 2008 R2. Now, watching R2 on my TV and Crysis 3 on my PC, the difference is completely easy to see and is way bigger than these two shots above are showing.

Gamecube is kinda cheating being 2 years into the generaton lol.

Honestly the leap from killzone 3 to Shadow Fall almost as big to me than those two games anyway. It's probably because of my apreciation of the technical side but Rogue squadron looks like a clear upgrade in polycount, textures and resolution, plus with more objects on screen. Where as Killzone is a whole new rendering paradigm with the shift to a physically based lighting solution, screen space reflections, penumbra shadows, volumetric somke, as well as a clear leap in texture resolution, ploycount,  particles, post proccessing like Depth of Field etc.

All those games you listed are HUGE leaps. It takes more than a bad pic to showcase that. Show it in motion. Hell, play it on your HDTV and you'll never go back. Once I get a taste for next-gen graphics, I'll never go back.

Yes and no. Yes in the sense of ...how much more round can you make a round edge each time? No, in the sense of worlds in games being bigger and not requiring dev tricks like fogging/texture swap. Those will be some core changes this generation.

We're moving more in an era of AI calculations, animation fluidity, destructible environments, physics calculations etc.

I'm loving this thread, everyone defending "THE LEAP", saying "No no, these are launch titles, wait for it!"... but GOD FORBIDS when someone says the same about Wii U's launch titles! Those maxed out the console, right?

Now, on-topic: I agree with the OP to some extent, we're at a point where models and textures don't look that much better, but I think the generational leap will be noticeable in other ways, like Gamepads with touchscreens, better animations, better sound quality, more stable framerate, deeper internet infrastructure, etc.