/vr/ - Retro Games

>>3074626
It doesn't.

>>3074636
>the games weren't high resolution
True
>or sharp.
A limitation of the technology at the time. The designers mostly intended them to be sharp (pic related).

>>2906592
Nintendo always defaults to sharp pixels when showing these games (see also box art, calendars, etc.). We had a whole thread on this recently that concluded sharp pixels were intended by many devs.

>>2901482
Of course they knew what the limitations of the displays were, but that doesn't mean they weren't still designing around them as opposed to for them.

Nintendo specifically (which is who OP picked as his example) has always worked with pixel art. The NES was designed to display 256 X 240 pixels. And to Nintendo who both made the system and the games, their goal was always for the player to see them as clearly as crisply as possible. Even though screens that were good enough to really do the games justice wouldn't be commonplace for a couple of decades, the clean pixel art style is always what they were going for.

It's proof positive when you look at the box art for Super Mario Bros >>2900228 which clearly shows a "pixel art" idealized view of the game.

It's more proof positive in the picture posted here. Any time Nintendo released high resolution images of any of their games it always shows crisp pixels. Because that to them, is how the games should be displayed.

You can play it on an ancient CRT if you want. And you can even think to yourself that it looks better. But OP's image is unquestionably and objectively wrong. Unless he's calling Nintendo themselves an indie developer.

More proof that sharp pixels were intended.

>>2830548
Except I'm right. Despite what CRT fans around here like to say, scanlines are absolutely not how classic games are supposed to look. That's why any time Nintendo shows their old games, they look like this. They don't add scanline filters and they don't take photos of them running on CRTs.

If you want to play your games on outdated hardware, there's nothing wrong with that. But don't think for a minutes that's how the games are "intended" to look.

>>2819196
Lol actually that was me, or at least I was one of the people saying handhelds look best when played handheld. But I was only really referring to a fairly small subset like the Gameboy series, Neo Geo Pocket and the like which had low resolutions and completely standardized screens. That's the key part, because every screen is going to be the same (unlike with TVs which will vary in size and quality) the games are more optimized for that aesthetic.

But that's just my opinion, and you're free to disagree and play games however you want. That same argument could be applied to CRTs as well, but I think CRTs all look terrible and I hate them. I think games look literal magnitudes better on modern HD screens than they ever did on the best CRTs. I also think scanlines do nothing but distort and ruin the image.

But again, just my opinion and I don't expect you or anyone to agree with me or care. Who gives a shit how someone else wants to look at their games? Also, everyone is going to think their opinion is superior. That's how opinions roll.

>>2788029
Wow that looks like a terrible screen. My LCD has no noticeable blurring at all so I don't see anything like that when I use it.

Of course that's a deflection. Pic related is what Mario actually looks like on a modern screen. Point being that is a much, much closer to the box art they used than a CRT will ever be able to do.

I'm not telling you that you shouldn't use a CRT if you like it. But I definitely think the games look far worse on them, compared to a modern screen.

The look of the game on the box is an idealized version of what it should or could look like. I think that's obvious and not intended as bait in any way. Although it's not perfect, now that we aren't hamstrung by CRT technology the games can finally look a lot closer to that than they could when they were released.

>>2773437
>continued

Considering this is what the game can look like now, do CRT fans truly prefer the fuzzy moire images that those screens produce? Nostalgia aside, do you honestly think it looks better?