/vr/ - Retro Games

Measure your CRT television screen and calculate it yourself.

16:9

>>5166793
But I’m looking for the correct aspect ratio, not 4:3.

>>5166801
CRTs aren't 4:3 anyway because they are curved.

>>5166801
Well, you can't really change the aspect ratio on a CRT without fucking in the service menu and cutting off part of the image

>>5166790
Wouldn't it depend on the game or its native region first? I'm not sure there's a universal answer to this.

>>5166790
There isn't, some games will mix and match.

First party Nintendo games are clearly meant to be 8:7, it gets muddy when you look at third party games that took into account the stretched pixels.

The deciding factor for me is that no game (that I know of) takes the 7:6 stretch into account in programming/physics, it's always 1:1. For instance pinball games absolutely should be played 8:7.

>>5166816
It would appear there isn’t. Scenes like this in CT don’t look correct at 8:7, but character portraits do. It seems like some assets were made with 4:3 in mind and others weren’t.

>>5166790
The round one, obviously.
>O hai gais is dis thing dat isn't a sphere how da sphere should look?

>>5166807
My CRT is flat.

>>5166790
We've been through this many times. The only objectively correct answer is that on a 4:3 TV calibrated to NTSC specifications, the PAR is exactly 8:7. It's math, not opinion.

>>5166790
Whatever you dial the h/v size knobs to on your TV, nob

>>5166838
>My CRT is flat.
That's the problem. SNES games were designed for curved CRTs. The curvature of the CRT changes the shape of the pixels and makes the oval in the OP pic look like a circle. Of course when you view it on a flat CRT or an LCD it's going to look wrong, but it's like using a phone camera photograph to judge a painting: You're just not seeing it in the right medium to judge the actual original work.

>>5166831
>It seems like some assets were made with 4:3 in mind and others weren’t
That's just the way it goes. It's all dependent on what the developer did or didn't account for.

>>5167001
Could you perhaps provide a picture?

>>5167001
>The curvature of the CRT changes the shape of the pixels and makes the oval in the OP pic look like a circle.

CRTS aren't concave, dumbass.

>>5167015
lol you're retarded

>>5167015
You're right, they've convex.

>>5166790
plug your snes in a crt.

>>5167001
pics?

>>5167001

That would be the case if the screen had a half sphere shape but the real curvature of CRTs is pretty slight, too slight for that to really matter.

>>5167001
Lying faggot.

>>5167001
Lol.

>>5167001
I feel sorry for anyone who believes this.

>>5166795
>>5166816
>>5166824
>>5166827
>>5166838
Stupid faggot.

>>5167142
dumb quoteposter

Dumb emulators don't take into account the overscan borders the real SNES outputs. As a result, the 4:3 modes in (most? all?) emulators give a wider picture than is accurate.

>>5167186
That's not what we're talking about. Overscan/underscan and aspect ratio are two different topics.

>>5167190
Measure the actual visible area in the image I posted (capture from actual snes). It's not 4:3 because the vertical and horizontal borders don't take up the same %.

>>5167186
Almost all SNES emulators have an 8:7 option since long before you were born. Scaling is user error, so go fix it, user.

>>5166790
SNES is a mess of resolutions and aspect ratios. It is a game by game bases, unlike most other consoles. In fact, some games are "wrong" with either.

>>5167212
Yeah, you understood nothing.

>>5167213
I’d say the PS1 is far, far worse in that regard.

>>5166790
It should be played on a perfectly square television. Is that what you want to hear? That Super Nintendo games are specifically developed to be played in an emulator window. Not on a 4:3 television. You happy now?

>>5167243
Really? Have some examples? The only qualms I have with PS1 video are that some games rely HEAVILY on dithering (silent hill for example) and others don't at all so I find myself flip flopping between composite and S-video cables all the time.

>>5167250
8:7 isn’t perfectly square, simp.

>>5167213
No it isn’t. The only displays available when during the SNES’ lifespan were 4:3. All games were intended for this ratio.

>>5167326
You people just don’t quit. Even despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you keep repeating the same thing.

>>5167328
Mhm, yes, everyone had 8:7 and 16:9 TV sets back then, clearly

>>5167349
People had 16:9 TVs before 2000. You can't deny that.

>>5167351
Sure, 0.00001% of the market. Doesn’t change the fact that games weren’t made with them in mind.

>>5167349
You also didn't mention that everyone had Flat screen, with RGB input and with images that were so crisp that you could see individual pixel.

Sonic waterfall transparency is a meme.

my pvm switches to 8:7 with the touch of a button
it looks better for most SNES games but I don't use it that much because I'd rather use the entire screen

>well you see the developers intended that their games be played on a display that they knew nobody owned
this is fucking retarded, the snes was a clusterfuck with resolutions and aspect ratios and many developers (including nintendo themselves) didn't bother dealing with this because they didn't care about small technical details. come the fuck on do you people really think developers wanted their games to be played on 8:7? why the fuck would they do that, it's so fucking dumb

>>5166790
4:3 you fucking idiot.

>>5167001
I don't play that old shit on a real TV...I use it for 360 and PS3/2 games...I emulate anything older than PS2, bypassing any CRT debate to begin with, because I only have RF for my NEs and SNES and that looks like shit and it takes a lot of work to get my NES to work at all, so it's easier to just emulate with crisp pixels.

>>5166790
4:3. Some games don't account for it and look wrong on it, but that's an error on part of the artists.

>>5167667
You could have said it doesn’t matter in a less roundabout and spergy way.

>>5167754
No you glue huffing spastic.

>>5168626
It seems most games didn’t account for it in some fashion. It’s usually only title screens and cutscenes that are made proper for 4:3.
Pic related >>5166831

>>5168628
you're trying too hard.

>>5168631
Yes... the sega development units had a CRT to test the games.

It's obviously that they developed for CRT.

Does all this bickering mean that 4:3 is the best aspect ratio to use on a flatscreen, even if it isn't historically accurate?

>>5168643
Can you read? The title says -SNES- games, moron. We aren’t talking about Sega consoles.

But since you brought them up: explain why the moon in the Shinobi 3 intro becomes an oval at 4:3. And while you’re at it, do the same for the moon in the intro to Castlevania Bloodlines and at the end of stage 1. They had CRTs to test the games on, after all.

>>5168680
It’s a game by game basis thing, with most of them favoring the native aspect ratio. Not 4:3. You’re never going to get a perfectly consistent image across the board.

>>5168707
Snes had a different resolution because it was less powerful than genesis, so Nintendo used that trick to stretch the screen to make stuff look faster.

Dumbass.

>>5168707
SEGA had the development units, the other softhouses had to make their own.

They used a different output resolution than the Genesis. It's possible that they used the SNES one.

You don't know nothing about dev history. Jesus.

Watch this video, the dev tell this himself: https://youtu.be/kILeyo1iv0A?t=69

I'm sharing this board with pixel-stretching zoomers. You think this looks good, don't you?
>b-but it fills up the whole screen!

>>5168840
I like how you quoted my post twice. Learn how to greentext.

>so Nintendo used that
Yes, but did every dev who made games for it intend for that as well? As I and others have said, probably not. It’s a mishmash of assets tailored for 4:3 and 8:7.
>SEGA had the development units, the other softhouses had to make their own.
So what you’re saying is, it varies due to different circumstances and tools available? Well thanks for agreeing with me.
>It’s possible they used the SNES one
The Shinibi 3 intro and Bloodlines’ Intro and stages all ran at a higher horizontal resolution than the SNES was capable of outputting. It’s possible that they just didn’t take the stretching into account. That seems to happen pretty often.

>Watch this video, that you’ve already seen, because I’m too lazy to actually make my own argument
I’m aware that the Genesis’ abysmal composite signal was used by SOME developers to achieve greater color depth and proper transparencies. What’s your point?

>>5168872
Oh god, imagine how fast the screen would appear to scroll like that. I bet Nintendo in the 90s would have creamed their jeans.

>>5168873
It’s not “tailored to 8:7” you stupid faggot. It’s that the NES and SNES were very restricted in what sprite sizes could be, and most sprites were 16x16 which happens to stretch slightly on a 4:3 TV. The games were made for 4:3 sets, period.

>>5168873
>>5168872

You're trying too hard to be an asshole.

Study a little bit about Dev kits.

>>5166831
You can see this in Quake as well.

>>5168901
they weren't made to be 4:3

>>5167186
this is the actual video output of SNES, and if we measure it we get a ratio that hasn't even been discussed in this thread, 9:7

so the actual aspect ratio is between 4:3 and 8:7.
the true PAR of the SNES is 9:8

so what's up with xenosaga?

are these games any good?

>>5168945
Again, you retarded faggot, no one had a display capable of showing 9:8 or whatever arbitrary ratio you want to come up with. They were meant for 4:3 displays.

>>5167001
Do you also believe that the Playstation reads laserdiscs?

>>5168974
here it is in plain english: SNES displayed black bars on the sides you fucking retarded illiterate mongoloid

if you say differently it's because your cheap 3rd world TV had awful overscan

>>5169010
It's still not 9:8.

The SNES PPU outputs 280 dots per line (256 dots of picture, 24 dots of black bars). With a 4:3 display aspect ratio and 240 lines per frame, the PAR is therefore (4/3)/(280/240) = 8/7. Any deviation from an 8:7 PAR is a result of display miscalibration.

>>5169010
yeah anon, everyone had PVMs with RGB modded snes to display crisp pixels.

>>5169010
Come up with any straw man you want, the fact of the matter is TVs were 4:3 and they were made with expectation that games would be displayed at that ratio.

>>5169042
>>5169056
>>5169070
>SNES displayed black bars on the sides
>SNES displayed black bars on the sides
>SNES displayed black bars on the sides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterboxing_(filming)

you fucking retards

>>5169097
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarbox

you fucking retard

>>5169042
This anon is correct. Both NES and SNES and several other systems from around that era and earlier had the 8:7 PIXEL (not to be confused with display) aspect ratio. And most emulators will not allow you to set this, instead offering only square pixels, and a slightly too wide 4:3 DISPLAY ratio that does not take into account overscan borders.

>>5169172
I wouldn't say "most" emulators don't allow it, just older, less accurate ones like Snes9x. Higan gets it right. Mesen, puNES, and Nestopia UE get it right.

>>5166790
>getting triggered about the pixels not being perfectly square
was it autism?

>>5166790
There isn't really one, it varies between games and even within the games themselves. What you play at comes down to what you think looks better.

>>5169221
No, it never varies. It's always 8:7 PAR in 256-pixel modes and 4:7 PAR in 512-pixel modes.

>>5169237
>8:7 PAR
So, if I understood correctly, there's no 1:1 pixel. The SNES can't output perfect squared pixels?

>>5169325
Correct. They're slightly wider than they are tall.

https://pineight.com/mw/index.php?title=Dot_clock_rates

>>5169341
So that basically kills the whole "metroid ball" argument. Thank you for the info.

>>5169382
No, super fagicom. It’s still an oval. Just not as wide.

>>5169395
That's what I meant. I was always oval.

>>5169398
Are you saying ovals are canon?

>>5169409
the argument that 4:3 is wrong because it's "oval". 8:7 is oval to.

>>5169409
but yeah, metroid crawl is oval now, it's canon.

>>5169440
uhm it’s called the morph ball

>>5169451
morph oval*

>>5169454

>>5169459
morph 8:7 oval

>>5169485

>>5169518
crawl 8:7 oval

>>5169214
All signs point to a resounding "yes".

>>5166790
just play them on a tv as old as or older than this one

>>5166790
Depends on the game. Some are built for 4:3 and others are built for 8:7.
It's a bitch, but it's just the way things are. The same issue plagues PS1 and N64 but it's not as bad there since most games on those systems are 3D.

>>5169774
No game was "built" for square pixels you dumb zoomer. Games may vary in how much effort they went to to compensate for non-square pixels but every dev would have seen their game running on a standard aspect monitor.

>>5168601
>crisp pixels
which make the art look shittier than its supposed to. Time and time again developers have talked about using the color bleed between scanlines to create the intended image.

NES pixels aren't supposed to be perfect squares

>>5169774
no one had a 8:7 unless you were a professional or some shit.

No game was designed for 8:7 screens. Not even PC games.

>>5170059
>>5168601
No wonder pixel art (shit art) games are a meme. People never played stuff on the original hardware.

>>5170290
More about it here: https://selectbutton.net/t/pixels-are-not-square/3212

>>5170290
Is the right supposed to look good? Lmao it’s a fucking mess.

>>5170292
Cringe.

>>5170302
Just go back to /v/ little kid

>>5170306
You’re not adding detail you’re just blurring the fucking thing. And that added “detail” has less to do with CRTs and more to do with shitty composite output.

>>5170302
It is objectively more appealing and intended.

You and your ilk are the reason why art is such shit. You have know eye for art, youre just a normal fag with self important opinions, projection issues and a whole lot of dunning kruger brainwashing. If anything artistic was left in your hands, it would be the most bland reguritation of nothingness.

>cringe
You need to k i l l y o u r s e l f

>>5170308
I really find it strange that you argue bullshit opinions against somebody who actually posted links to support their argument. You have extreme cognitive dissonance.

>>5170309
And if anything artistic was left in your hands it’d probably fall to the floor because you just got done rubbing your TV screen with Vaseline.

I’m sorry sharp pixels scare you. Please don’t ever look into RGB modding,

>>5170310
I’m sorry you think linking half-baked opinion piece articles does anything other than highlight what a daft twit you are.

>>5170302
yeah, right.

>>5170318
That one actually does look better on the right,

>>5170319
All of the examples look better.

The games were never supposed to be blocky. They were going for an animated aesthetics since the beggining.

Games like Cuphead or Hollow Knight are the natural evolution of it. Not "pixel art" indie shit.

Even that rainbow effect from image distortion adds into it, it looks like light reflected from a waterfall.

And this image is not even accounting for the CRT artifacts, like bloom and colorspace.

>>5170324
They were never supposed to appear blocky yet the Genesis supports RGB right out of the box.

You’re a spastic zoomer who knows nothing about image quality. Feed RGB to a PVM with a TVL count of around 600 or above and you won’t get that rounded, fuzzy image you’re so enamored with.

Pixels bad reee

Get those sharp pixels away from me. Composite is the ONLY way to play!

>>5166790
1x1

>>5170340
>>5170343

That happened because Atari games were being misrepresented. Nintendo had this politic to show the sprites of the game, so no one would buy a game expecting one kind of graphics and get another. It only happened in US. Because of Atari.

Nintendo had to sell NES as a toy in US, that's why it came bundled with ROB. (for me ROB is the most important character for Nintendo, I don't think that Nintendo could've sell their console if weren't for him in the beginning).

That's how much damage Atari caused. it's not called Videogame Crash for nothing.

>>5170340
I'm not sure why that happened, but I think it was because the European tv system that had to use SCART cables.

American/South American Genesis/Megadrive used to come with RF or composite cables.

>>5170378
>It only happened in the US
Uh-huh, right.

>>5170415
this is artwork pro the spritesheet that the designers used to draw by hand/cad.

Again. you should learn more about history.

>>5170617
It’s the Japanese manual for super mario bros you twat

>>5170660
yes, with artwork from the GDD.

>>5170318
what's this place?

>>5170667
Your point being?

>>5170343
I bet those were like that because it was cheaper than getting original artwork done. They did away with that box art style as soon as they could

4:3 makes my penis look longer, so that.

>>5170318
That's just the default gamma setting in mame being retarded

>>5170673
>>5170669
It wasn't how it was """supposed""" to look, but a representation of the sprite in game.

They used to design the sprites with squared paper. They used that artwork to represent the sprites.

>>5170316
>half baked
You can disagree with the conclusion but it wasnt half baked

>>5170340
>>5170343
>>5170415
Were your VIDEO games displayed on paper or a television set? It’s irrelevant as to what they looked like on paper, the end product was meant for a 4:3 television, you stupid faggots.

>>5170707
They were designed on paper and the paper is truer to the original artistic intent.

>>5170717
But not really.

>VIDEO GAME PIXELS WERE NOT MEANT TO BE SEE-
oh...

>>5170741
>-N
That pic is supposed to prove they aren’t, right?

>>5170741
yes. When you play it on a GBA the screen is small and it has some kind of motion blur that's hard to describe.

>>5166790
4:3 output with 8:7 internal.
People have a hard time accepting that the majority of the time devs did not compensate for the aspect change for when the picture was outputted on real hardware. Most sprite work was done on PC88 or Sharp x68k and was made to look good on there.
There are some games that do take this in to account and have not circular or square art that when stretched is outputted correctly.

>>5170741
this post is particularly embarrassing as gameboy color and gba games have fucked colors in emulators since they were overbrightened to compensate for the dark screen

RGB isn't necessarily sharp and blocky

>>5170810
I'll never understand what information this kind of picture is meant to convey. No one plays video games 1 inch from the fucking screen, it means nothing to how the actual image looks when you're playing the game from a few feet away.

>>5170835
The point is even there you can see the softening of pixels and it's not like an emulator with an LCD screen would show it.

>>5170810
The scanlines aren’t very pronounced. What model CRT is that?

>>5170847
Yeah, LCDs are just way too high quality for retro games. I need a shitty coarse-pitch CRT to blur the flaws away so I can pretend I'm really playing a modern game with high-resolution art. Pixels suck!

>>5170853
You can be a shithead all you want, that literally the way the games were supposed to look. the artists and developers didnt make their games with 2010's tech in mind.

Pixels are just points of color info, they were never intended to be displayed as perfect, rigid little blocks

>>5170881
What do you mean? I'm agreeing with you! I don't want to see those ugly pixels! That's why I have to use a CRT, I can't make my LCD blurry enough to hide them.

>>5166790
>make console where internal resolution isn't a 4:3 aspect ratio like any TV people would be using to view it
>don't take this into account when making the games and all the sprites look stretched out and fat

Why did they do this? They knew damn well nobody would be viewing it on an 8:7 screen. And lots of 3rd party devs were able to take the non-square pixels into account and still make their sprites look good and accurate. Why?

>>5170893
TBh some games look better on an LCD and some look worse. I get the waterfall in sonic but for the most part the colors and everything looks so much better on my OLED. For most NES games they look better either using CRT Royale or just playing them on my trinitron. But to be honest I just play them using a filter on my OLED or my 3ds. I can’t be bothered going to the basement everything I want to play something and filters in retroarch have gotten really freakin good

>>5170904
8:7 requires less processing power and look as fast as Genesis because of the stretched screen.

But yeah, they should've developed tools to correct the aspect ration.

>>5170881
they were never intended to be displayed as perfect, rigid little blocks
Yeah, that’s why they look like perfect, rigid little blocks with sprite scaling. Or in games like Doom or Wolfenstein. Blocky pixels only existed back then on paper.

>>5170909
Try PSX and PS2 games... they look horrible.

>>5170942
I'm not asking why the internal res was 8:7, I get why that's the case. I'm asking why nintendo didn't take this into account when designing their sprites and graphics like what many 3rd parties did?

>>5170947
PS2 games look great in 4k.

>>5170947
I mean, PS1 games look horrible regardless. With PS2 you can crank up the internal resolution in PCSX2 to some sweet results. Dragon Quest 8 and the Silent Hill games see a massive improvement.

Honestly doesn't look like either on my TV, more like something in between.

>>5170904
Lower resolution needs less processing load + less video memory.
The SNES had a very high color depth for it's time and that was in part to making the trade off with resolution.
Now why (most) devs did not work their art to accommodate? Lazyness really. If it looks good on the PC their designing it on its good enough to ship.

>>5170956
see
>>5170949

I'm asking why they didn't take into account that the picture would be viewed in 4:3 and take that into account when designing the graphics.

>>5170959
Read the rest of my post...

>>5170952
>>5170953
ohh you're emulating.

>>5170959
To tell you the truth I've never noticed that Samus Crawl was actually oval until people pointed that out.

>>5170969
MORPH BALL. MORPHING BALL.

Pinche estupido...

>>5170972
It's not a ball if it's 8:7.

It's a Metroid Morphing Oval.

>>5170979

>>5166790
4:3 is correct but some games were erronously designed for square pixels and its reasonable to play them that way.

Does any top down game speed up vertical movement to be the same as horizontal movement? Does any game have diagonal shooting or movement such that its a perfect diagonal only in 4:3? If so, those sorts of games should only ever be played 4:3

>>5170810

What a lot of /vr/ is not apprisiating is that a lot of pixel artwork on the SNES is not large enough to correct for the aspect ratio conversion.

If you slice off a column of pixels on the left and right side from the morph ball in an attempt to correct for 4:3 you make the issue even worse issue of over correcting and now it being a oval vertically, so then pixels would need to be removed from the top/bottom but now you have a notably smaller object. And keep in mind you have to work with in the sprite size so often you can just add an arbitrary amount without redefining the entire sprite size.
You can only really correct for this gracefully once you get a large enough pixels to work with so the object need, so due to this much of the art just isn't worked for the 4:3 stretching.
Besides, you NEVER saw people complain about this till emulation on LCDs. 99.99% of consumers either never noticed it or just didn't fucking care.

>>5171000
We can at least agree they look better at their native aspect ratio on LCDs, right? Right?

>>5171000
In the specific case of the morph ball, that's actually not true. It's 16x16, which when stretched to 8:7 PAR makes it an oval. But if you slice a pixel off each side, making it 14x16, then stretch to 8:7 PAR, you're back at a perfect circle.

The real reason is the devs were probably overworked and didn't really give a shit. It was close enough.

>>5170835
Its a 240p image so the pixels are huge. It still mostly looks like this from a distance, or you have a small TV, or your eyesight sucks.

>>5171002
Wildly depends on the game, and even then a single game may have some art that does and some that dosn't.
So no, I can't agree with that one fully. But I will agree that SOME do look better .

>>5170947
Psx games look horrible regardless though. I still play them in pcsx r at native res with a filter though. I play Saturn through beetle Saturn and n64 through mupen with angry lion. PS2 games look great in 8x internal and so do Dreamcast and GameCube games. I don’t teally get your point.

>>5170980
are you okay anon

>>5170989
>4:3 is correct but some games were erronously designed for square pixels and its reasonable to play them that way.
I've never thought about it. But yes, since some games were developed without taking the aspect ratio in consideration, it's okay to play them in 8:7. These games would still follow the original design. But it's hard to know which one... Since the 4:3 stretch makes the game look faster.

>>5171000
that really makes sense anon
nice one.

>>5171012
>PS2 games look great in 8x internal
Do you have a 8k monitor? PS2 is 640x448 typically so 8x is 5120x3584, way above 3840x2160 or even 5120×2880

What's funny is the NEStroid devs actually remembered to take the PAR into account.

>>5171024
Downscaling/sampling is fantastic. A performance hog, but it’s probably the sharpest way to get rid of aliasing. I always downscale from a x2 resolution of my monitor.

>>5171024
No but I do have a 4k 65” OLED LG and i don’t like the blue that FXAA adds. Downscaling is the best option to reduce jaggies

>>5171026
So did Super devs, for big objects that mattered.

>>5171063
Pretty sure Samus isn't supposed to be this skinny.

>>5171063
I mean 99% of your play time isn’t going to be spent seeing that.

Then we have Planet Zebes, which doesn't look quite round no matter what...

>>5170804
It's interesting you should bring up the PC-88/PC-98, because people did funky things with the aspect ratio on those.

So the primary output resolution for the PC-98 is 640x400. The monitors they were used with were, of course, 4:3. So you'd expect that they'd have had a PAR of 5:6. Except, the art used in every single PC-98 game I've ever seen was very clearly drawn with the assumption of square pixels. If you stretch them out to a 4:3 display area it just looks wrong. This is in contrast to western-developed DOS games which used the same resolution (or the similar 320x200) and mostly took the 5:6 PAR into account when creating their art assets. So why didn't the PC-98 devs? Well, turns out it's because pretty much everyone just adjusted their monitors to display square pixels, leaving black bars at the top and bottom. I guess in the western world, people were more interested in having the picture fill their screen.

With the PC-88, the primary resolution is 640x200, and it seems that people mostly used a 16:10 display area for them as well, so the PAR is 1:2. Later on, the PC-98 would include a 200-line mode to ease porting of older software. This mode was scan-doubled for display on the PC-98's 24kHz monitors, but rather than doubling each line like VGA did, they actually interleaved black lines into the graphics plane. So now the pixels were actually square, but with thick, chunky "scanlines" separating them.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, really. Just a bit of trivia.

>>5171076
It looks plenty round, you're just distracted by the optical illusion of the shading.

>>5170674
>I bet those were like that because it was cheaper than getting original artwork done.
The usual case of "not invented here" sperging?
I get the idea behind wanting uniform style box art, but who the thought the pixel mess style box covers looked good... Or, then it was a conscious choice of wanting to show how the actual game graphics where going to be, as opposed to the early 80s days where video games tended to have super cool and elaborate cover art, and the games themselves looked like absolute dogshit?

>>5171097
>The monitors they were used with were, of course, 4:3
98Note didn't have 4:3 monitors and games commonly had a LCD option for them.

>>5171131
The only LCD modes I've ever seen in PC-98 games simply changed colors around to improve visibility. Are there any games that actually use different art assets for LCDs?

>>5170340
>>5170343
>>5170415
>>5170717
>>5170741

>>5171690
Gotta love that smooth, modern look! Pixels look so shitty, lmao.

>>5171690
lol at brainlets preferring left

>>5171076
>>5171070
>>5171063
touche

>>5171097
That's REALLY interesting.

Where did you find this information?

Sometimes I wonder how much history we are losing for not registering it anywhere.

>>5171690
There’s some games where this is a big deal and others where it’s not. Most games weren’t really made using that type of usual trickery and the devs just weren’t worried about it. It’s silly to think that every game is like this when in reality it’s a small amount of games. Besides emulators have filters for that these days

>>5172424
You’re wrong and it’s ok to be so.

>>5170851
Sony KX-14CP1

>>5171690
Beautiful.

>>5172653
The actual picture is plenty bright, and surely brighter in person. Why would you feel the need to doctor the picture unless you know your (nonexistant) argument is wrong?

>>5171690
>right: oval skeleton shield
>left: round shield.

hmmm

>>5172714
It’s a shitty picture. Right doesn’t even look integer scaled.

>>5172749
yeah anon. right.

>>5168872
what's wrong with that pic?

>>5172749
The entire point of this thread is that integer scaling is WRONG for displaying many games intended for CRTs as they don't comprise of square pixels.

>>5172846
Motherfucker, then the least they could have done is use a pre-scale algorithm.

>>5172846
Also it’s only wrong if you’re a cuck who prefers ovals and stretching.

>>5172871
Yeah, in using Metroid as an example you can see that the both Metroid Crawls are ovals.

>>5172964
I’m gonna beat your fucking ass.

>>5172871
What the fuck are you even talking about?

This discussion is clearly beyond your limited intellect so kindly pipe down.

>>5172981
p-please don't

>>5173107
Kindly blow my pipe, fuckboy.

>>5172871
A circle is just a type of oval.

>>5173225

>>5173132
NO SYMPY

>5173209
Definitely some deeply Freudian shit going on with this anon.

>>5173209
>when women try posting on 4chan

>>5174364
Do you know if the robot spin is oval too?

>>5174417
He has an egg fetish and keeps posting the same thread in the hopes that once he convinces you it's an oval, he can get you to buy some bullshit about a taper at one end caused by screen geometry to complete the illusion and convince himself the developers have always secretly shared his degeneracy.

this thread is proof that /vr/ is just as stupid as /v/ if not more so

>>5175332
We’re just some lads having fun.

>>5169010
My snes didn't have any black bars
NTSC 4:3. What the console was intended for.

>>5175480
Yes it did. 12 pixels on the left and right, 8 lines on the top and bottom. You just never noticed because they were hidden by your TV's overscan.

>>5175480
>I don't know what I'm talking about but I'm going to post anyways
Your TV had overscan because it was a piece of shit.

>>5166790
4.3 on all TV's but it is in my opinion better on a CRT (even thou i cannot play on them all the time since i am a lazy sod).

>>5175484
>>5175482
stop delude yourself. All of the tvs were like this back then. unless you were a professional.