/vr/ - Retro Games

>>2857068
>Because displaying pixels is abstract, they have no choice but to use squares.

That's my point. These were idealized conceptions of what the games could look like at their best. The designers were working with pixels, so when artists were hired to do video game art they were asked to make them look pixelated. I know calendars aren't games, but they are calendars made to represent games and are very obviously showing them with big clear, crisp pixels. Not the kind of blurring and blending that a CRT makes.

That is proof positive that at least in Nintendo's eyes, these games would ultimately look best when you can see each block of color clearly and sharply. That TVs at the time were incapable of it is beside the point. Mario was always supposed to look blocky, not blurry. Deny the box art >>2854052 all you want, but you are simply and plainly wrong that CRTs make these games look best.

And again, if you like them then by all means still use them. But as someone who even as a kid in the 70's not knowing better screens would ever be made hated the way CRTs look. I've seen shitty basement ones, and super expensive fancy ones, I hate them all. To me people who still like to look at CRTs are as crazy as the people who still like to listen to vinyl. I honestly can't understand why anyone would want to still look at one.

But as with them, I'm sure you're just as adamant on your point of view so ultimately we don't have anything to talk about because our disagreement is so fundamental.

As for OP's point though, that adding scanlines or blur filters to an image that was sharp in the first place makes the image objectively worse. Which again isn't me saying he shouldn't use them if he likes, but adding noise does nothing good and replicating CRT distortion never improves the image.

I'll leave you with this, the only other example in all the Nintendo calendars of stylized CRT distortion. Not as clear as the Metroid one, but there somewhat