/vr/ - Retro Games

>>5451646
>>5451643
>>5451629
>>5451615
>>5451650
And to continue
My preferred resolution for gaming isnt so much about the pixels as it is about the pixel density and screen size. Im talking like 17 inch at the most on a laptop screen.
I like my games with full-on Antialiasing running at probably 40ish fps range, at roughly 1024x600.
I want there to be some "grit" to it, I dont like smoothness, though I dont like lag either.
Used to be I would set fps on games to 30 and cap it there no matter how fast they were, but now its not quite enough. I would really love to have 24 fps back but I would need the same kind of CRT blending going on that I remember from back then. Its a lost technology.
If anything I think the big mistake was made all the way back when television came out. Setting the resolution to 648x484 instead of something larger, and then investing in the extra bandwidth at the time to make it work.
800x600 would have allowed for more data on the tv and a higher quality picture, and when the computer age happened regular TVs could have been used straight up for information display instead of needing specialized computer monitors. It could have carried as the standard for a long, long fucking time. And even when a (much) higher resolution would have been required, it could have been done with projectors or specialized big-screen-tvs at double the resolution for another 15 years.
Someone with some brains could've figured that eventually tv screens might need to hold more information on them.
There is also the mistake of not going with the Golden Ratio on the subject either. 16:10 pretty much. It could've Always been widescreen. Though now that I think about it there might've been some engineering hiccups with getting the CRT to scan that wide (who knows).

>>4162545

Actually there are only 2 real problems with it that ive noticed.

The comms guy who keeps shouting orders is very bland and sounds like some 18 year old they pulled off the street. Not only that but gives you alot of very obvious mission orders for the areas you're in (which the objective computer could just tell you). Yes this is a case of shitty voice acting but it pops up so often that it really gets annoying.

There's also no real emotional attachment to characters - all the comrades that you run into have gone off their rocker heavily (maybe the strogg injected them with nanites that did that, but it isnt explained why you cant just drop small arms for these guys to use after freeing them). But the voice acting for them is also pretty bland and monotone too.

The other problem - the enemies are all really damn good shots, and the ones that aren't (gladiator) are the ones that should be. They do nerfed damage but its still pretty disheartening, unlike doom's zombies the grunts in this game can bullseye your ass, and with hitscans you're just taking the damage no matter how far away you are.

(they are cyborgs so maybe they have quickscoping software in their brain, but its still pretty awful - they should at least have randomized start trajectory, then aim to follow successive shots)

The rockets also go kinda slow too. There really is alot of target-leading with those things. This isnt just a multiplayer criticism its also ass for single player too.

> Multiplayer

kiss my ass, I didn't play MP with this game for at least a year - it wasn't until they unblocked the computers at the university comp lab and I could install the game from disk.

It isn't just about multiplayer, Q2 has a pretty long sp campaign. It feels kinda long at least.

(isnt that what she said?)

pic related I think this thread is starting to beat a dead horse