Don’t know if this was already mentioned because forgive me for not reading all the dimension stuff in here to the letter, and I’m not exactly going to argue along with this, but the fact that the right paddle in Pong is to the right of the left paddle in Pong while there’s also stuff above and below is already proof enough that it’s a 2D game.

Anyway.

OT: No, of course not. Minor enhancements in the way a picture is rendered on the screen, a picture which was already possible (it’s possible to render a building in the 8th gen that looks pretty much the same as in the 9th gen at a glance), isn’t the same improvement as going to a completely new way to play games (3D, free roaming control, first person, you name it), like when we went from 4th to 5th.

If bigger leap means more pixel on screen than previous gen. That's about it. Same controllers, same shoot games, same car games, same sports games. On and on.

The bigger change this generation will bring is the reduction or elimination of loading times. Which is incredibly ironic, since that is something we already had in the past. So the biggest innovation... is just the industry saying: "Hey guys, remember how in the cartridge era loading times didn't exist? Well, it's been almot 30 years, but we finally got back on track" xD

Biggest leap? By what metric?

There hasn't been a "big leap", imo, since PS1/N64 to PS2/GC. And even that wasn't a MASSIVE leap.

The only MASSIVE leap was 16 bit to 32 bit/3D era. And even then, that's debatable, because 3D games aren't "better" than 2D games. Just different.

Here is an example of a 1D "videogame" for all those debating the issue. I remember seeing this at some game show event in person a few years back. It's called Line Wobbler.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j8YAAcBU8Y

Do you know what 1D is? It's a line from left to right, width but no height. Atari 2600 games fill a flat screen on the x and y axis regardless of their simplistic square sprites. It is therefore 2D graphics. I've seen you post crazy shit on here before. You're mental aren't you lol.

Parallax scrolling was simulated depth, where as polygonal games actually have 3D data and exist in a real 3D space. 2600 doesn't simulate 2D, it is by definition 2D. So this analogy is dog shit haha. you daft

Edit- User was banned for this post.

JWeincom

Lmao. No it's just that you're coming up with arbitrary definitions for everything and there's just no need. You could have just said Atari uses very simplistic graphics compared to NES so it was a huge jump, but you decided to like invent this weird definition for what you call a "1D" game.

The paddles in pong have both width and length. It's 2 pixels wide and several long. It's simplistic for sure, but regardless, it's a 2D object. Also the ball moves in many directions on a 2D plane. Then there's the numbers on the scoreboard. They can't exist in 1 dimension, physics just won't allow it, know what I mean though?

Though I do agree from a 'what you see on screen' point of view, that the jump from Atari 2600 to NES was one of the biggest.

Also, don't developers claim this like every generation?
I could've sworn they said the jump from PS3/360 to PS4/Xbone would be the biggest ever, yet it's easily the smallest so far to my perception.

Going from N64/PS1 games to Halo, Soul Calibur, and Rogue Squadron II, or from PS2/Xbox/GC games to Gears of War, now that was a massive leap.

At the end of the 80's (or very early 90's) I bought a C64-collection with Castle Master 1 + 2, Driller and Total Eclipse and played them with ~1 fps:

It was an awesome teaser for the technical development of the next years.

heh says the one twittering once again