/vr/ - Retro Games

>>2773285
I fell for the CRT meme, too. I bought a Sony Trinitron, because everyone was saying that it looks so much better this way. It looked good, no question. But not as good as everyone claims.

Right now I'm playing my consoles via RGB cable on an HDTV, and the picture quality is crystal clear, it just looks so good. Also if you wanna have deep black on an LCDTV just lower the contrast and you're good to go.

light crt filters can really make some games look better though, becouse some textures are filled with one color and adding some scanlines makes it seem deep.
and maybe nintendo didn't cared but there has to be atleast some devs who would try to make their games look best on tv screen.

This thread's just going to get deleted so why bother discussing it? You should have just made a "Super Mario Brothers 1 is better than Super Mario Brothers 3" thread. We haven't had that one for a few hours.

Or you could have posted it in the /crt/ general thread to be ignored by elitists. That's pretty much your only two options now on /vr/

Maybe say that some e-celebrity said it.

Why do you care how other people play their games, OP?

Same goes for any CRT fans that try to convince people that CRT is the only way to go.

>>2773296
I've never understood it. I think CRT screens are really ugly personally. I get that some people do like the look, but trying to insist that's what the games are supposed to look like is a real stretch to me.

>>2773301
>becouse some textures are filled with one color and adding some scanlines makes it seem deep.

If you're doing that, might as well just toss a noise filter on there. Scan lines don't add real detail, they don't define the image in any way, it's just adding more visual clutter.

>>2773303
I don't care, they can play them any way they'd like. I'm just curious what they think about their opinion of idealized NES graphics and Nintendo's opinion on the matter.

>>2773302
Your antics never get old.

>>2773302
accurate representation of /vr/

>>2773303
Yeah, let's just never discuss anything, cause everyone has their own opinion anyway, right?

>>2773306
I can understand certain arguments for CRT's though, like having the "original" or "nostalgic" feeling.

>>2773302
The problem is that is not going to be deleted, even when OP is clearly baiting for replies. Just see how long a fucking thread about "retro is torture for children" stayed up
>>2773285
IIRC there where no comercially color LCD and Plasma during the time of the development of the game. "crt fans" you refer to usually prefer RGB signals, which don't have those shitty blue artifacts.

>>2773306
>Scan lines don't add real detail, they don't define the image in any way, it's just adding more visual clutter.
they did add some detail for me and it was the best option to keep image as clear as possible. mind that i'm talking about some really, really light scanline filter, almost unnoticeble.

>>2773309

The thing is, the way Mario looks on the American NES cover of SMB1 is still different than how it would look on a modern LCD screen. Even using filters and all on emulators, you wouldn't have these movement lines that they added to Mario on that cover. It's more like stylized artwork than anything.

Here's the back cover, this is how Nintendo showed the game should look like on a TV.

And again, you shouldn't really worry anyway, if you enjoy playing on HD screens, or using filters, continue to enjoy it, nobody will stop you.

>>2773313
It's not bait, I really want to know what CRT fans think of this. They tend to say that the way they play the games is how they were supposed to look.

Also the image on the left is displayed on a Sony Trinitron KV-27FS120 which is a CRT as far as I know. It wasn't taken by me though and is really just there as a representation. We all know what games on a CRT are like, that's what the thread is about.

>>2773317
My point is that the "detail" they add is really just the same as adding noise. It doesn't related to the image or add detail that makes what it's supposed to be more clear, it's just clutter. Though if you like the way it looks, that's really all that's important.

>you wouldn't have these movement lines
Obviously not. But if we take the image on the cover as Nintendo's idealized concept of what the game should or could look like, displaying the pixels crisply on a modern screen is a lot more accurate to that than an CRT monitor.

And like I say, though my OP may have come off a little standoffish I think people should play their games any way they like and if CRT looks best then great. But I'm still curious to hear opinions.

>>2773313
The /vr/tan thread sure got deleted right quick. Not before the original and hyper-popular mascot of our board got torn to pieces by newfags who fancy themselves the real face of retro gaming. It makes me sick.

>>2773321
"CRT look" is something
Video signal visual artifacts are something else

>>2773337
Now take that comparison with the waterfall section on the first level.

>>2773331
So do you come here every day just to have something to whine about? It's all you seem to do.

>>2773337
Aye, that is a fair point.

>>2773346
See what I'm talking about? Literally the only thing /vr/ is now besides the same topics I've already discussed to death (including this one, in /crt/) is baiting. So here we are baiting. How would you like me to contribute to the thread? By antagonizing the OP since that seems to be the discussion method dujour?

LCD is fucking shit, period. It's laughable that his solution for barely-gray black is "turn down the brightness" are you fucking kidding me? I imagine this is probably his solution for the ghosting as well and we don't even need to talk about the tearing and interlacing he's somehow overlooking. Fuck, let's just focus entirely on his actual points. The actual LCD material is going to prevent him from ever achieving deep blacks if he's not in a perfectly dark room, which is exactly how I visualize him - in some basement with pasty face three inches from a $80 19" Walmart VGA LCD running Super Mario Brothers on emulation "Man those guys with their real hardware are stupid"

Not that anyone has EVER posted macro shots of an LCD screen to demonstrate how nice their setup looks. The ONLY pics those people post are screen captures which obviously communicate nothing about their displays.

Fuck, I can certainly produce photos of this for comparison as I'm sitting not fifteen feet from a PVM with RGB connections thats outputs are further going to an LCD HDTV. We could be looking at the very obvious differences in color dynamics, seeing the very obvious delay or appreciating the ugly interlacing as I haven't dropped $300 on a Framemeister.

All of that would require me to put forth an amount of effort that I'd need to feel was actually contributing something to a community I cared about and while I do still generally care about this community, I've recently come to the sad conclusion that little besides drama and ceaseless reposting actually accomplishes anything here anymore

>>2773397
I'm OP, the guy mentioning LCD isn't me. I agree they're not perfect, but I take even those washed out blacks over a CRT screen any day of the week. I'm not concerned with achieving deep deep blacks anyways though.

I am a weird case though in that I have unusually sensitive eyes and actually find CRTs hard to look at so I'll take almost any display over one.

This thread wasn't really intended to be a debate over that though. I'm more interested in people thinking that the use of the moire pattern of CRTs was a deliberate design choice.

If someone really does like that look more than the clean individual pixels the way you can have them look on modern displays, I'm interested to hear about that too.

But back to my original point, if you hate this place so much now, why do you continue to spend your time here shitting up other people's threads? Are you that pissed that there are still people here who like it? If you can't enjoy it anymore, you might as well do everything you can to ruin it for the rest of us?