/vr/ - Retro Games

>>3545295
No, it looks ugly. The fact that it's technically more advanced doesn't automatically mean there is "no way" it looks worse. The lighting is more advanced but looks harsh and unnatural. Contrast is worse, everything is slightly washed out and dark patches are not truly dark. There are more polygons in everything but the environments still managed to look worse, with poor choices of textures that don't blend well together. Despite the higher polycount, the world looks like it has way more "seams" than the originals did. And on top of all that, a lot of the architecture has a very copy-pasted feel with arches and pillars and such.

>>3521530
This pic is a good example of all of the above.

http://phoboslab.org/wipeout/

Can't remember if I first saw it here on /vr/, but some guy wrote a visualizer that does flythroughs of Wipeout 1 and 2097/XL tracks. Gives you an idea of what it would look like on a port with unlimited draw distance and high frame rates (though of course you would have to hide the parts of the track floating out in the void).

>>3184124
I remember seeing a picture of pic related with a "high res texture pack" and ENB.

>>2794967
>filtering displays pixels calculated with more data
>???
>therefore, filtering looks better than unfiltered
There's no logical connection there that's going to convince people it looks better. You just look at the pictures and decide for yourself. In Quake I prefer no filtering, in Tomb Raider I do use it for whatever reason.