/vr/ - Retro Games

>>9667618
Yeah, a myriad of bugs, visual glitches and all that other shit caused by those 'improvements'

>>9667618
why do you care? is this how you're spending your day?

>>9667625
The implied assumption of OP's post is to hold all else constant, therefore he is necessarily talking about games where you will not find such bugs.

>>9667628
I don't care? I just find it inexplicable.

>>9667628
why do you care? is this how you're spending your day?

4:3 is fine. Having things presented to you in different frames is always nice. It's why not all paintings are squares, or on A4 pieces of paper.

>>9667629
Then it's okay if it's your first time playing I guess. I'm watching OP's webm and I just want to vomit

>>9667625
>Yeah, a myriad of bugs, visual glitches and all that other shit caused by those 'improvements'
[citation needed]

a lot of these source ports actually fix bugs that were present in the original releases

>>9667638
>and I just want to vomit
This is what I'm trying to understand, why? Surely you're just nostalgic for the original look of the game? There is no rational reason to protest against anything in that webm.

>>9667650
Not really nostalgic, grew up with the PS1 but basically what I'm getting at is that yeah, it just doesn't feel right to me because I 100%'d this game multiple times in its original form

>>9667618
A lot of those "improvements" are just removing unique quirks and replacing them with what's considered normal today, making the game less interesting.

>>9667618
no, the n64 was never good

>>9667658
>making the game less shite
fixed that for you. I bet you unironically defend the N64 cuntroller

>>9667639
>[citation needed]
He literally clips the camera through the floor in OPs webm

>>9667664
Camera clipping was already in the original game

>>9667662
Not everything needs to play exactly like a Sony TPS from 2023. Variety is a good thing.

>9667618
You are such a disgusting subhuman for thinking that shit looks good
And I don't give a fuck if the trannymods ban me for making this post
Kill yourself disgusting faggot

>9667618
>You are such a disgusting subhuman for thinking that shit looks good
>And I don't give a fuck if the trannymods ban me for making this post
>Kill yourself disgusting faggot

>>9667669
Variety is good when the things varied are good. The lack of a second analog stick has only ever been a crutch. the original M64 was already trying to compensate with the C-button business.

>>9667673
>it's a /v/tard again
No wonder OP doesn't even like retro games, we are being raided again. I've already witnessed one shitty /v/-tier thread like 10 minutes ago but it got deleted

>>9667682
>>9667682
He started with the /v/ shit, I just responded in kind.

The game was made for 4:3, widescreen completely misses what made Mario 64 good.

>>9667717
>the aspect ratio is what made M64 good
reaching a little aren't we?

>>9667721
t. vertical video recorder

>>9667730
you sound unhinged

>>9667730
Funny thing is if you wanted to have Mario 64 on a YouTube Short or Facebook/Instagram Reel, you'd play it in 4:3 for better visibility on a 9:16 screen

>>9667618
Depends on the game, I feel. SM64 is one of those rare games that doesn't look too bad with high FPS on a typical monitor because it's mostly flat polygons that can be easily antialiased.
Better camera control is inarguable, thoughever. Wrestling with the camera was never fun or challenging or anything, just painful.

>>9667618
Because that looks worse than playing the original game on my RGB modded N64, connected to my 900TVL CRT monitor.

I never understood why this didn't get the widescreen treatment while Sunshine did in that collection.

>>9667768
>RGB modded
At that point use an emulator or OP's setup...

>>9667618
it depends on whether or not the coding and assets are conducive to scaling and how much archaic control/camera schemes were built into the logic of the game. Mario 64 having modern analog control and wide open spaces is probably more conducive to updating than other games would be.

>>9667773
I would if those alternatives looked, sounded, or played better than my glorious setup.

>>9667776
Composite on a consumer CRT is best

>>9667780
Too blurry and low resolution for my taste. I like a sharp picture.

>>9667784
>I like a sharp picture
Such as digital out to a flat panel?

>>9667787
Not at all. 240p looks like shit on a flat panel.

I don't "opose" any way someone wants to play a game. But I'm not going to pretend I agree that the game is better with these "improvements".

When you grow up you'll begin to respect the original artistic intent and the way the devs and designers embraced the limitations they faced. The coherency of the game's experience depends on these limitations. The art direction was lead with 4:3 in mind. The animations were coded with 30 fps in mind. The textures and models were crafted with 240p resolution in mind.

TLDR: you can continue to tell yourself that you are not missing out on anything by modifying the game in the way you have been, but it's simply not true. I have nothing against you enjoying these changes, but you are wrong about anything opposing it being all about nostalgia

>>9667793
How

>>9667813
>the original artistic intent
there was nothing "artistic" about the decision to lock the fps to 30, are you the same autist from the ocarina thread?

>>9667824
I assume it has something to do with how the image is processed by the scaler/decoder of the TV. Whatever the reason, it's not surprising to me that the image turns to shit when you upscale something that's 240p to 4k.

>>9667662
This is, despite it's diss on the N64 controller, one of the more Nintendo Fans posts I've ever seen.

>>9667618
1. you can't do that on original hardware
2. you already warped your mind via using other hardware such as your PC
3. now your stance is that you should use your PC or other hardware's native resolution and features

>>9667839
Nearest neighbour scaling on an emulator looks good

>>9667835
it'a ok you're not the brightest. I'll try to explain a bit more. The decision to lock the 30 fps is not what's artistic. What is artistic is how they conceived the animations to look good at that frame-rate. Are you implying that if the original game was 60 frames per second, they wouldn't have made the animations look any different? Because that would be dumb.

>>9667618
it depends on the change and on the game, there is no simple yes or no answer that can be universally applied.

下げ because the OP seems to be a loaded question.

Because I'm one of those unhinged 'games are art' fags, and to me the original flaws and limitations are integral to the overall piece

I'm not saying I see anything wrong with your webm, and if those changes make it more enjoyable for you then by all means. Games are meant to be played after all. It's just not for me

>>9667858
>how they conceived the animations to look good at that frame-rate
animation interpolation exists

>inb4 b-buh it looks bad muh developer intention
you faggots are worse than audiophiles

>>9667870
>animation interpolation exists
and your point is?

>>9667876
>and your point is?
that your objection is a non-issue

>>9667870
>animation interpolation
Which is the cause of the issue: keyframes become less exaggerated because there is an intermediate, interpolated mean keyframe between any two keyframes

>>9667678
I don't see the problem. If anything I find a second stick more obnoxious because I have to take my hands off of the A and B buttons. I like that Mario 64 is heavily designed around guiding the player without them being forced to manage the camera on second stick, I feel like games designed for a second stick end up lazily tasking the player with it, and so instead of occasionally having to set a specific camera angle (like when Mario 64 occasionally fails to offer a good perspective) you end up becoming your own cameraman and have to fuss with it much more often.

I don't have any problem with the OP webm, and in fact I've used the render96 thing and it's been a cool way to revisit the original, but personally I don't think it's necessary, and I think camera stick games are often times more annoying than games with more guided camera control. Also, I've never been a fan of using right hand sticks, and so I prefer things like goldeneye moving on buttons and aiming with left thumb on the stick. Aiming with right thumb just isn't ideal for me, I'd much prefer using a mouse at that point. I don't expect people to assume this to be a majority opinion however.

>>9667878
please elaborate. Are you saying that the intended frame rate the game runs at has no effect on how the animations are designed? and I will ask again, are you saying that if the game was able to run at 60 fps right off the bat, the animations would not have been designed differently?

>>9667771
they probably didn't want to be bothered with updating the 2D assets or with redoing things that look weird because of widescreen. Sunshine was probably easier all around to make widescreen.

>>9667879
this person gets it

>>9667885
>Are you saying that the intended frame rate the game runs at has no effect on how the animations are designed?
No, I didn't say that.

>and I will ask again, are you saying that if the game was able to run at 60 fps right off the bat, the animations would not have been designed differently?
No, I didn't say that.

>>9667879
The keyframes are all still there, there are just more frames between them.

>they're less exaggerated now!!!
Yeah because there are more fucking frames now dipshit.

>>9667870
>audiophiles
weird comparison, considering you are the one arguing for all these extra steps and hardware needed to enjoy the game, while I'm just enjoying it the way everyone else did back then

>>9667909
how is it a weird comparison? audiophiles cry about new ways of playing the same music the way you're crying about these new source ports.

>>9667907
>no I didn't say that
so then we agree there is some merit tk playing it at the original frame-rate. Why are you being such a contrarian dweeb?

>>9667907
>Yeah because there are more fucking frames now dipshit.
In the off-chance you aren't trolling, what it means is that stylised animations become less pronounced because the interpolated frames normalise the animation. I think a simple solution might be for interpolated frames to not be a mean but 25% of the way instead.

>>9667618
>Is there literally any reason besides nostalgia to oppose widescreen, 60fps, better camera control, and other such improvements for retro vidya that didn't originally support it?

Only if >>9667625 ends up being in the final result. If not, then no-- there's absolutely no reason to oppose it.

>>9667917
>so then we agree there is some merit tk playing it at the original frame-rate
no we don't, I prefer the look of the smoother interpolated animations.

>>9667921
>what it means is that stylised animations become less pronounced because the interpolated frames normalise the animation.
I see how this can be true in theory but in practice I just don't see it. What specifically about Mario's movement in the OP webm do you find objectionable? "It's too smooth" is not a valid objection.

>>9667921
>25% of the way
Or, since 30 is divisible by 3, 1/3 of the way might be less awkward

>>9667914
it's telling that you feel the need to exaggerate to make your point. I have no problem with the people enjoying games whichever way they want. If you can't accept that there are some downsides to these new modifications, then that's on you.

>>9667914
An Audiophile will play a 78RPM record from the 1920s on a setup that cost tens of thousands of dollars. Similarly, a game-o-phile will play a game from the 1990s on a brand new computer with high-end hardware, 4k display, shaders, higher resolutions and framerates.

>>9667935
are you implying people don't spend thousands on PVMs, games and hardware?

>>9667618
30 fps cinematics are better. You could also argue 30 fps battle animations are better on JRPG.
Widescreen on 2D games generally break the game. Sonic is the only game that benefits from it. For 3D games it is always an improvement. Well maybe not 21:9
Camera movement changes how game feels, but is generally for the better.

>>9667937
I'm implying no such thing. What you're describing is just another breed of game-o-phile.

>>9667929
so, you have a preference, an opinion, good job. No one gives a fuck. if you think some people are genuinely upset about you enjoying the game this way you need to get out more.

>>9667618
I just see no point in it. Ive played these games for decades and dont need to play """better""" versions. It doesnt offer me anything. I also like just appreciating, for better or worse, how a game was designed. Its not even a "console baby!!" thing, I grew up on PC and I rarely even bothered with mods unless it was like a custom map in a shooter or goofy shit to fuck around with. I dont bother with hacks either of older games, its like, ive got too much shit I want to play, im likely not going to bother with a fan-game version of something ive already completed years ago. I mean its great people are so passionate about these games, but id rather see that passion directed into developing new games based around the ideas these people apparently find so enthralling with their no personal style of themselves injected into it.

I guess something like OP pic is fine for someone who didnt grow up with it and just refuses to accept the limitations of the era before they will play it, but to me its all just meh, whatever. Same goes for a lot of official remakes unless the game is vastly different.

>>9667942
you're implying the best way to play the game is on a period TV with an original N64. I see no valid defense for this position and think you're just blinded by nostalgia.

>>9667921
>>9667932
You have the right idea, but are going about it the wrong way. You generally want the interpolated frames to be as far away from the keyframes as possible, as they disturb the intended impression of motion less that way. So you'd want to play a 30FPS game at 60FPS, with inbetweens smack in the middle, and a 20FPS game at 40FPS. Moving inbetween frames to be closer to the keyframes is what makes things look much worse.

>>9667929
Most of the animations in Mario 64 look great with interpolation, but I'd prefer Mario's arms to move more aggressively when running. Moving his hand from point A to B should be frantic, but the delay between A and B cannot really be appreciated if the interpolated keyframe is the mean of A and B—like I suggested earlier, the interpolated frames should be 1/4 or 1/3 of the way there instead of 1/2

>>9667943
>if you think some people are genuinely upset about you enjoying the game
There are people upset about it in this very thread. I'm replying to one right now. Fuck off.

>>9667950
Can you stop imagining what I'm thinking? I literally have a PVM and modded consoles.

>>9667962
Then what IS it you're arguing exactly?

>>9667953
>Moving inbetween frames to be closer to the keyframes is what makes things look much worse.
Does it look worse? 3D Street Fighters do this to imitate the framedata of the 2D games whilst having 60fps animation

>>9667960
they don't sound as upset as you, dweeb.

>>9667950
But it is? Thats literally how it was designed by the original developers.

>>9667971
who the fuck cares what the original developers intended? they also intended for you to be 8 years old and for it to still be 1995.

>>9667974
low IQ perspective

>>9667979
139 professionally tested

>>9667965
I'm arguing that this anon's >>9667870 comparison of audiophiles to gamers who want the "dev intended" experience (period appropriate setup) is not an apt comparison.

You can be upset that n64s are expensive and crts are getting hard to find, it's ok:)

>>9667980
then you must just be emotionally stunted lmao.

>>9667979
He isn't exactly wrong. We are used to HD screens. You're reading this on a HD screen. PVM look crisp so you don't have to get adjusted to blurriness.

>>9667989
I'm OP and I literally have one and an original copy of M64 rught next to me.

>>9667974
>who the fuck cares what the original developers intended?

>>9668000
>developer opinion matters
now apply this logic to the star wars prequels.

>>9667980
I CANT FUCKING TAKE IT ANYMORE
EVERYWHERE I GO I SEE IT
I SEE THE QUOTES, I SEE THE MISE-EN-SCENE, I SEE THE NUMBERS
I WILL HAVE BRAIN WORMS FOR 10 YEARS, AT LEAST

I honestly just don't like widescreen very much

>>9668003
How is that a comparable argument? The prequels are shit, but thats how they were designed. Its still the devs decisions that resulted in it. You can try and "fix them", but thats not the intended product. You want to mod a old game? Go ahead. But dont act like you are being accurate to the developers original vision or how it was designed during its era.

>>9667959
>>9667968
Ok, I assumed you meant that you wanted all int frames to be unconditionally closer to the keys, but I get the impression that what you actually mean is that you want the frames' interpolation to change depending on if it's appropriate to that animation. That's different, but would basically require the equivalent of redoing the inbetween frames manually.

>>9667997
if you're playing mario 64 on PC and noting it to be superior, then why are you holding onto that old garbage? You should sell it to someone who will actually use it.

>>9668017
Me neither, it's aesthetically inferior to 4:3 (and even more so to 16:10). 3:2 is okay.

>>9668027
I wanna show me kids, just as a novelty, what old shit was like

>>9668037
I don't think you have any kids. Enjoy your Mario.

>>9668016
Point is if Lukas' "vision" for Star Wars was respected from the get-go, the original movies would have been just like the prequels. Developer opinion isn't worth shit.

>>9667638
Yeah, the game went from having some charm with it's dated visuals to looking like babby's first unity level. Like adding tape hiss to music that was recorded digitally.

>>9668064
You do understand that a movie is a collaborative effort? Lucas wasn't the only one working on Star Wars.

>>9667618
Which emulator is that?

>>9668090
By the time phantom menace as being produced Lucas was God. He has the reputation and influence to never be challenged

>>9667629
>about games where you will not find such bugs.
that is an unreasonable assumption to make

>>9667867
only sane post in the thread

>>9667962
>modded consoles
Cringe. Might as well emulate at that point.

>>9668297
Just RGB mods. Nothing major.

This is /vr/ perhaps you would find /vmg/ more to your liking thank you goodbye

There's certain sacred cows I won't touch but if people can achieve 60fps without it breaking game logic I'll take it, especially in a relatively high speed dynamic game like 64. some light interpolation wonkiness be damned.

>>9667980
ahahahahahahahahaha ha
this nigga posting his iq now

>>9668064
139 iq on display, folks
hahahahahahaha

>>9668187
Cæteris paribus is literally the default assumption when testing a model

>>9668309
Yeah, RGB, so you may as well emulate

>>9667618
60fps on games that weren't designed for it always feels very weird. The animations weren't made with that in mind and so everything just looks like a Benny Hill skit.

>>9667618
Someone like you is so soulless you'll never, ever be able to understand even if it's explained to you.

Do whatever you want. Then get upset, angry, and confused about why you're never having any fun.

>>9667980
Well done, one part of your brain is good at something, that being meaningless pattern recognition. Now base your entire worth on that number because you have nothing else in your life.

>>9667618
insanely soulless

>>9667618
Nintendo should've done that in the first place, same with OOT.

Those nipfags really mishandle their old IPs

Not gonna lie, I only visit this board to laugh my ass. All those insane neckbeards pretending that 60 fps is soulless and only the oldest, unpatched/first print version of a game is valid. Like, even if the original team updated it even once, they of course ruined it and it's not the "real" game anymore lmao. It's peak hipsterism, a caricature of it.

>>9667618

Well OP? You gonna answer him >>9667628 homie?

Not gonna lie, I only visit this board to laugh my ass off. All these insane neckbeards pretending that 60 fps is soulless and only the oldest, unpatched/first print version of a game is valid. Like, even if the original team updated it even once, they of course ruined it and it's not the "real" game anymore lmao. It's peak hipsterism, a caricature of it.

>>9667618
>Is there literally any reason besides nostalgia to oppose widescreen, 60fps, better camera control, and other such improvements for retro vidya that didn't originally support it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI5qy9Zoh_0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEIFx7dpM3Y

>>9669565
It's not. It's a matter of the animations of these N64 games being high quality and the visual impression they give designed around the frames being timed in specific ways.

It's nothing to do with "change = bad", but rather people with taste are noticing and pointing out things that contribute to the games' quality and that hence should be handled thoughtfully.

>>9669574
>t's a matter of the animations of these N64 games being high quality and the visual impression they give designed around the frames being timed in specific ways.
this is literally not a thing and you're huffing your own farts

After decades of playing these games at 30fps and with limited camera control, all these "improvements" are just a distraction to me. So personally, I don't use them. Widescreen is fine by me, as long as the original FOV is relatively intact and it doesn't break the presentation of cut-scenes.


I really dislike the way the OOT port interpolates 20fps into 60 and beyond, it looks completely fucked up to my eye? Is that because I've been playing the original at 20fps since 1998? Very possible. Or is it because the original animators hand-crafted those animations with the low framerate limitations in mind? Also very possible. I don't like how fluid and sped up everything looks, it just lacks weight and impact now. PC games from that era look completely normal and fine when set a higher framerate, so I think its just a case of OOT's animations really being based around that 20fps which the game runs at.

I suppose my ethos will all this stuff at the end of the day is: if it breaks shit, I'm turning it off.

Black bars for 4:3 don't bother me. Low framerate's don't bother me, as long as they're stable. And I can handle a slightly wonky camera, although that one can be way more annoying than the previous two if it really is a truly bad camera.

I think N64 games scale quite well into high resolutions, aside from games like Goldeneye with really obvious geometry/texture seams. But PS1 I only ever feel right playing at native resolution or 2x internal scale.

Widescreen is nice, and higher frame rates are okay, but Mario 64 looks better with its original camera. People meme about it being bad, but in reality it's amazing 90% of the time and bad the last 10. The way it lets Mario move within the frame gives a much more dynamic feeling than you get with a hard locked view. The generic camera people mod in is mediocre 100% of the time.

Think of your screen as a canvas. If you are increasing the aspect ratio from was was intended, you are essentially ruining the composition of the image.

>>9669594
Thing is with bigger screen size you can take advantage of with higher FOV.

>>9669594
You can take advantage of bigger screen with a higher FOV than original.
>>9670272
This is only true for 2D games and games with fixed camera angles. If you control the camera wider is better.

>>9667618
>camera clips into the ground in the first second

Real impressive. Think I'll stick with the original.

>>9667618
Having a wider field of view makes the games easier than they were meant to be. Good for the faggots and n00bs. Not needed for the rest of us.

>>9670924
>>9667668

Can’t wait for Nintendo to inevitably release its own inferior 60fps widescreen port for $69.99 + tip which tendies will hail as the definitive way to play the game, a masterpiece, etc.

>>9667618

Widescreen format is okay if nothing in the game gets stretched and if game difficulty isn't significantly affected. It's unnecessary, but okay. Anachronistically high framerate is okay if it doesn't look unnatural and ugly, and may even be an improvement, but in general I'd call it unnecessary, and sometimes it does look weird. High resolution is usually very bad because of how ugly it makes everything; but in pixel-art games that actually tend to improve when the viewed area becomes larger (war games that show you battlefields from above, say), increasing resolution can help.

The OP video looks okay to me, but I don't see any reason to prefer it to the original. The smoothness and clarity of everything emphasizes the sterility of the scene, and it shouldn't be a sterile scene. It should feel friendly and inviting. Decreasing resolution of textures and of the display area adds visual noise, which allows the imagination to fill in more softness. Fuzzy-edged grass looks flexible and not so much like a stiff plate with some paint on it.

In general, I'd say that people who want these "improvements" are afflicted with tunnel vision and bad taste.

>>9669594
>Or is it because the original animators hand-crafted those animations with the low framerate limitations in mind
The port interpolates the animations at 60fps? Does not sound like a good idea. If I were adding 60fps to a game, I would only interpolate camera and player position, and leave everything else untouched.

>>9667618
They can actually create functional problems for some games. Diablo 2 for instances was designed completely around 4:3, and enemy line of sight works around this, if you render in 16:9, now the player can constantly see monsters who would otherwise have been waiting outside your field of view, and their AI has them just standing there until you actually get into the range defined for 4:3.
You can of course adjust the AI, but now you have certain encounters which simply aren't balanced the same way as they were originally.

For first person shooters I think it's usually a worthwhile option to add, because it fits the gameplay. Some which use sprites though may have weapons which simply don't continue past the original 4:3 view, leaving with you with them cut off at the edges at times, which looks pretty fucking glaring. There's some fan-made patches to solve this, but they're not all made equal.

>>9667637
Tru.

>>9667658
I don't think every 4:3 game needs to be adapted to widescreen, but I also think that for many games it's an insignificant difference, occasionally an upgrade. Doom works well in widescreen (as long as you maintain the intended tall pixels), and in a sense it serves as a substitute or alternative to the triple-monitor feature it supported back in the day.

When you're moving fast in a first person game and threatscanning left to right, being able to see a bit more to the sides is not a bad thing.

>>9672201
>(as long as you maintain the intended tall pixels)
The tall pixels don't matter at all, just because the game originally rendered at 320x200, does not mean that you need to maintain that pixel aspect. 3d games don't care about pixel aspect since all the graphics are all scaled anyway, doom works perfectly fine with square pixels.

>>9667618
Well, I don't like such improvements though they of course have their merit.
It's nice to play improvement hacks and the like if you've already beat it several times but I don't think this should be one's first playthrough, no matter how dated a game may be.
In the end, it's your call how to play it and nobody can force you to play it one way or another.
But, think about it.
Can you really claim you like a game if you had to bend the rules?

>>9672938
Doom's art was explicitly created around tall pixels.

>>9667618
>any reason besides nostalgia
Well, nostalgia is for me one of the reasons i bother to play. Comfy.

>>9673032
The fact that the art is drawn with non-square pixels is irrelevant. It is not a requirement for the art pixel aspect ratio to match the screen as 3d games re-scale all the graphics anyway, once you are re-scaling graphics, having the same pixel aspect ratio does not matter.

Anything not displayed on crt is souless shit

>>9667618
Nope
But at least add new feartures, I mean more than qol and new graphics

The Render96 guys are never going to finish the updated level geometry for this game are they?

As I get older, the more I appreciate what goes into making a game. I think younger anons lack a certain context of how games were developed for older platforms since there's so many retro inspired indie games these days. Like you can play a really good looking indie game with 2d sprites, but when you play an actual 4th gen game that looks phenomenal it's like ’oh fuck, look at all these parallax layers' or 'how did they get this giant boss sprite to work on the fucking NES? Is it the background layer?' etc. There's a charm a marvelling at how developers overcame limitations when playing an impressive older game that you just don't get in modern equivalents, and when you take those games and put them in environments where those limitations are no longer at play...I don't know, I'm not saying it's a bad thing but I feel like it takes some of the fun out of the experience

>>9667658
This. I recently picked up the Crash Bandicoot N.Sane trilogy, and those were my thoughts as well. Without the original graphics etc, they just felt like barebones, underdeveloped tech demos. Obviously they're (mostly) the same game, but the original games were pushing the limit of what the original hardware could to, and the developers created all kinds of different programming and visual techniques to be able to complete the game. Your brain notices this. The remasters are just bog-standard Unity games made by significantly less talented developers and artists.

>>9669479
Not him but pattern recognition is what separates janitors from physicists, my dude. Pattern recognition extends to even abstract patterns, patterns of internal thoughts, patterns of speech, patterns of belief, etc. Most of reality is comprised of patterns.

I wish there were an armored core rom that lets you aim worth a fuck.

too bad nintendo won't give us this for money. still printing copies of mario all-stars. literal demon company

>>9667618
widescreen is a stupid meme. 4:3 is better. Actually I'd prefer 1:1 if i had my choice but for some reason people are obsessed with wideness.

>>9673456
>Crash Bandicoot N.Sane trilogy
going from 30 to 60 fps and adding completely new fur textures aren't comparable

>>9673740
why were doom clones locked to the x axis instead of the y axis?

>>9673753
I'm contributing to the conversation you absolute pedantic autistic fuck.

>>9667618
Honestly, no. I tried SM64 during the pandemic, and the game felt so slow and primitive. Your webm looks a lot better

>>9673803
no you were taking a discussion of enhancing original assets and where that line should be drawn and moving it to replacing them entirely.

>>9667618
Yeah , the extra steps necessary to achieve said attributes, too much effort for gaming. I prefer plug and play, if only they made a n64 mini to go alongside my other mini consoles.

>>9673291
This guy gets it.

>>9667618
for something as energetic and lighthearted as mario 64 I think 60 fps makes a lot of sense, sort of gives it that more immediate toy like quality to the world. something like say silenthill being taken to 60fps is another matter.

>>9667881
Well said. Camera design is unironically a lost art in 3D games and forcing the player to constantly fuss with the camera for a good angle in a 3D platformer is just bad. Mario 64 has a good compromise between fixed camera angles and player controlled camera, where you can change the camera angle if you need to but you usually don't.

>>9673204
None of that is my point. The graphics were designed like they were for a reason, and if the displayed image isn't stretched vertically, everything will look awkwardly squat and compacted, with various round things becoming ovals. This isn't just the case for Doom, but for quite a lot of different DOS games of the era.

>>9667618
some older games look really bad in widescreen because it can draw attention to how undetailed the environments are

it can also give an unfair advantage if you can see more of the screen if the information available to the player was designed for 4:3 (top down games would especially be effected by this)

i also just don't give a shit about black bars

>>9667618
It entirely depends on if the game and system can properly handle those improvements. For example Widescreen can be a mixed bag depending on how a game works. Best case scenario you get something like what we've seen in stuff like Mario 64, worst case scenario you get a glitchy mess where some parts of the screen have the correct aspect ratio but others are horribly distorted or you get garbage outside the original 4:3 area because the 2D art assets weren't drawn with anything beyond that area:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wAbqEZp7dg&t=140s

>>9673973
>It entirely depends on if the game and system can properly handle those improvements. For example Widescreen can be a mixed bag depending on how a game works. Best case scenario you get something like what we've seen in stuff like Mario 64, worst case scenario you get a glitchy mess where some parts of the screen have the correct aspect ratio but others are horribly distorted or you get garbage outside the original 4:3 area because the 2D art assets weren't drawn with anything beyond that area

That's more an issue of forcing an emulated game to run at 16:9, even many NES and Genesis era games had garbage along the edges of 4:3 image because the overscan of the TV was expected to crop that out.

The OP's video however is of a port of the code designed to run natively on a pc at 16:9, not just tricking an emulated 4:3 game that thinks it's running on original hardware that was never meant for more than 240i or max 480i to run at 16:9.

Case in point, such a port: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrZFRZU2yV8

>>9674010
>That's more an issue of forcing an emulated game
It's an issue in modern HD ports as well. It all depends on how the assets were made. That footage for example was from a hack that changed the way the game rendered to render in anamorphic wide screen. It works on both real hardware and emulators but has issues because the original assets only have image data for the 4:3 area. This carries over to modern ports and HD remasters as well. Grandia HD for example they either zoomed in and cropped the 2D 4:3 backgrounds to 16:9 making it so you actually see less of them, or did a horrible AI Art kind of crap where they tried to extend the data on the ends to comical results.

So it really depends on how the game works, and what format the original assets are in.

>>9674073
The issue is those games are build in 4:3 frame. There is nothing extra to see in 2D games or games with static camera. It's like trying to watch 4:3 films in widescreen.
16:9 or 21:9 makes sense in games you control the camera, as you see more of the screen basically. Only exception I can think of is MGS 2 and 3 as widescreen makes them easier than intended. Which again this is only true for bird eye camera which is static.

The Mario 64 source port is so strange.

The entire autistic Mario community came together. Bashed out a source port in like a week. Made 8 versions constantly adding new shit and the. LITERALLY EVERYONE STOPPED ALL DEVELOPMENT and everyone disappeared from the tranny discord and nobody ever mentioned it again.

>>9674107
The issue is that some games like Grandia use a combination of 2D and 3D graphics, and the 2D graphics were made for a 4:3 frame. So when you try to make that game widescreen you get a mess as the 3D Graphics get drawn correctly, but the 2D parts of the scene only fill what's available so you get either garbage or nothing filling in the missing space.

>>9674073
>It's an issue in modern HD ports as well. It all depends on how the assets were made. That footage for example was from a hack that changed the way the game rendered to render in anamorphic wide screen. It works on both real hardware and emulators but has issues because the original assets only have image data for the 4:3 area.

Yes, for games that just had pre-rendered backgrounds that specifically fill up a 4:3 ratio there would be no difference in going widescreen, as well as others that have pre-made large assets for just that kind of space. But for many 3D games or 2D games that use tiled areas/backgrounds (like that Sonic CD example, or even Super Mario World) it can work well. Nobody is saying that every old game can be made to work in widescreen.

>>9674114
>Bashed out a source port in like a week.

Umm no, the project to decompile the game took years.

>LITERALLY EVERYONE STOPPED ALL DEVELOPMENT

Also wrong, new assets and modes are still being developed. The Render96 team just as few days ago showed off updated level geometry.

>>9674118
That still is a game made for 4:3 frame. Just because it uses some 3D graphics doesn't change that. Heck God of War 1 and 2 are made for 4:3 despite being completely in 3D. Also as I said despite MGS2 supporting 16:9 in remaster I think that's an inferior way to play that game. Especially for the first time. It's nice to have the option for replays of course.
One aspect ratio isn't necessarily better than other. 4:3, 16:9 or 21:9 all offer something different. Especially if they decided on a specific frame.
I think games with camera control generally don't fit very well on 4:3. So they almost always benefit from widescreen patches, but as I said that's only because that style of camera doesn't work well with 4:3. Static camera doesn't have that problem.

>>9674214
It's not even an issue with pre-rendered backgrounds. Any game that had art specifically made for a 4:3 area with nothing beyond that area will have an issue. it can happen with tile based games as well.

>Nobody is saying that every old game can be made to work in widescreen.
I didn't say they did. I simply pointed out the issue is that it needs to be addressed on a game by game basis. It doesn't matter if it's a 3D game, a 2D tilemap based game, etc. They all can have issues if you're not careful.

The point of what I posted was to simply point out to the OP that there are legitimate reasons to not add certain "improvements" if the game was never intended to run like that.

>>9667618
Nobody mentioning that 60fps often breaks collision and timing. For instance you take a lot more enemy damage in Turok and Goldeneye if you play 60fps.

>>9674239
>Any game that had art specifically made for a 4:3 area with nothing beyond that area will have an issue. it can happen with tile based games as well.

EVERY game before the HD era was made specifically for 4:3. That doesn't mean every game was designed in a way where the gameplay view can only be constrained to 4:3.

>I didn't say they did. I simply pointed out the issue is that it needs to be addressed on a game by game basis.

I don't think anybody was arguing against that. Yes, of course you can't just blanket apply it to any game and it's on a per-game basis.

>The point of what I posted was to simply point out to the OP that there are legitimate reasons to not add certain "improvements" if the game was never intended to run like that.

I don't think the OP was trying to argue that every game would work. And again, technically every 4:3 game was never intended to run at 16:9, that doesn't mean that none of them can, especially if you have the source code. I doubt the OP was trying to argue that Deja Vu on the NES has no reason not to be widescreen in 2023.

>>9674254
In proper 60 fps hack that shouldn't be an issue. I also noticed enemy AI being more aggressive in Resident Evil 4 UHD (2005) and Killer is Dead (it doesn't support 60 fps but you can edit files). Maybe other games could have similar issues.

>>9674254
Forcing a game with parts of it hard-coded to run at 30FPS in 60FPS, yes, that will definitely happen. This even happens to poor PC ports (Like the Steam port of Vanquish). There are even PC games today coded for 60HZ that break on people with 75, 120, 144, or higher hz monitors.

It's different however when you have the source code itself and can design the game to run at 60FPS or even any FPS and not hard-code anything based on any specific FPS.

>>9674254
obviously you would need to do some sort of hack in order for it to be feasible, nobody just doubles frames in an emulator and watches things in bennyhill motion.

>>9667618
What does it mean for me to oppose this? Not playing it?
Because I'm not going to play it, rather just emulate.

>>9673829
I'm sorry you're like this