/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.1391626]

[Anonymous No.1391647]

When did it become Zelda 2 week?

[Anonymous No.1391662]

>>1391647

I'm making a specific point about how games actually looked "back then" and how it's believed that old games looked.

With the native resolution, and blurry RF or composite cables (which the majority of people used) older games had slightly fuzzy graphics, with sprites that looked rounded edges. The "pixilated" look only comes from playing on an HD display and upscaling the graphics with nearest neighbor.

[Anonymous No.1391672]

>>1391662

wow thats really thought provoking. good job

[Anonymous No.1391709]

>>1391662
That's only correct for a small fraction of games. The majority were on computer monitors with relatively sharp pixels.

[Anonymous No.1391726]

>>1391626
That's far, far blurrier than how the game actually appeared on a typical late-80s CRT using composite video.

[Anonymous No.1391729]

[Anonymous No.1391731]

>>1391726

Give me some shots then.

Most of the screenshots of CRTs now are people using PVMs and RGB cables. Not typical stuff. The standard was shadowmask + composite (at least in the West)

[Anonymous No.1391769]

>>1391726
I'm not gonna argue which is the "true original intention" of the developers, but I will say that I grew up playing (and still occasionally play) 8-16bit consoles on CRT TVs with RF cables, and that picture looks about equally blurry to me, although it doesn't really capture the wobbly picture, or the "snowy" static interference on the picture and sound.

[Anonymous No.1391779]

>>1391731

[Anonymous No.1391783]

This is Link on my 1986 Trinitron, over composite. It's about as good as could have been expected for him to look. Its convergence was probably a bit better fresh from the factory and I haven't tuned them in because I'd have to twist its actual rings. No service menus back then.

[Anonymous No.1391793]

Here he is on a 2003 Wega, also using a component input from my Wii.

[Anonymous No.1391796]

I don't remember games ever looking as 'liney' as pictures here seem to suggest, and even hooking consoles up now they don't seem that way at all. I am in a PAL region though. Obviously slow down is known about, but is the picture quality any different between the two regions due to the refresh rate?

[Anonymous No.1391798]

don't even get me started on scanlines.

i'll cut your fucking dick off

[Anonymous No.1391813]

>>1391796
Technically, yours would have more lines because your picture is just slightly taller/narrower than what we use in the states. The refresh rate wouldn't affect it. A lot of the shaders/filters that produce scanlines look more pronounced than it really would on most TVs, but I play on CRTs pretty frequently, and they totally exist. The thing a lot of filter's can't imitate very well is that the scanlines are less noticeable where colors are brighter; the drawn lines will glow brightly enough to negate the empty space between them in a lot of bright spots.

Pic unrelated.

[Anonymous No.1391817]

>>1391779
>Composite and RF photos are completely out of focus, almost deliberately so.

Not trying to defend composite, but still.

[Anonymous No.1391829]

>how a camera sees a really low quality TV
>what retro games actually looked like
No.

[Anonymous No.1391830]

>>1391813
CRT_Geom is starting to do a good job of simulating "bloom" I've been impressed with how convincing it gets ir in some dudes' pics I've seen but my PC isn't strong enough to run it at full FPS.

[Anonymous No.1391845]

Just taken from my PAL CRT bought around 1995 with a composite-SCART connection.

[Anonymous No.1391860]

>>1391813
Some shaders to replicate the bloom around bright colors. The bigger issue is that getting more accurate scanline behavior requires a lot of resolution, far more than the 4x scale or so that typical 1080p displays are capable of. Do not expect to see all of the subtleties of CRT displays emulated at a higher degree of accuracy until at least 4K displays are more common.

[Anonymous No.1391868]

>>1391626
so retro games actually looked like shit? good to know

[Anonymous No.1391874]

What's the point of threads like this? Are you trying to say that one is better than the other or are you trying to say that one is more historically authentic than the other one? And really, what does it matter?

[Anonymous No.1391886]

>>1391874
Not OP, but the point of the thread is clear as ever. Fucks thinking that emulation on an LCD is equal representation of what (are now) classic games were like when they were new, and making stupid "retro" shit to cash in on it.

Like people who would be saying they're in the Kiss Rock National Guard because they only have to rock out one weekend a month.

[Anonymous No.1391890]

>>1391874
>What's the point of threads like this?

It allows people who found a CRT on the street of paid $10 for one at a goodwill to jerk off over how superior they are. I use a CRT too but these people who take pictures of one super up close and claim that's how they actually looked when playing the game from a normal distance are annoying.

[Anonymous No.1391896]

>>1391868
>so retro games actually looked like shit? good to know

That's if you had your nose to the screen. No one did that with CRTs. At least 3-6 feet away.

[Anonymous No.1391897]

>>1391874
Not OP, but as futile as it is to discuss the agenda of "Anonymous" on 4chan, I guess he just wanted to convey a simple truth which might not yet be apparent to the potential reader.

You are free to skip the thread if there is nothing to gain for you.

[Anonymous No.1391895]

>>1391886
>Fucks thinking that emulation on an LCD is equal representation of what (are now) classic games were like when they were new, and making stupid "retro" shit to cash in on it.

Who cares? Go bitch about this on /v/.

[Anonymous No.1391907]

>>1391886
Do you have any idea how crazy you sound? You're demonizing people for daring to like an LCD image over a CRT image? They're seriously "fucks" for preferring what the image technically looks like instead of what it authentically looked like at the time? And how dare they to have cashed in on an art style that they found appealing because it's not 100% authentically accurate to recreating the exact feeling of playing it back then?

[Anonymous No.1391910]

>>1391907
Not retro. Please stay on topic.

[Anonymous No.1391914]

>>1391886
If Indie game developers put the loving sprite design in that Nintendo developers did back in the day, I would be fine running their games in actual resolutions that simulate the legitimate vintage eperience. There's a guy who posts pics of Cave Story running in 240p on his CRT and they look like an awesome 80s game.

[Anonymous No.1391916]

>>1391910
What?
How is that not on topic?
That is exactly on topic.

[Anonymous No.1391918]

>>1391907
It's cool to like emulation without DA PHILTARZZ, but shithead "retro" fucks dick it up and make a "pixxilzed" mess that looks nowhere close to how actual games did.

Also, while I'm explaining shit that should be clear, water is a substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen that tends to remain in a dense, liquid state at the temperatures humans find comfortable.

[Anonymous No.1391924]

So indie games should look like a picture of a CRT with your face pressed up against it from a low quality camera?

[Anonymous No.1391921]

>>1391914
If indie developers liked games like the 80s artists did, they would have also created ultramodern, boundary-pushing graphics that overcome the hardware. You know, like those developers. Instead of some pseudoretro schlock.

[Anonymous No.1391926]

>>1391918
The OP image isn't as good a representation as that one that has Little Sampson on the right.

[Anonymous No.1391932]

>>1391918
>shithead "retro" fucks dick it up and make a "pixxilzed" mess that looks nowhere close to how actual games did.

Why do you care so much about how anonymous people on the internet play their video games?

[Anonymous No.1391937]

>>1391921
Well, unfortunately it takes much bigger teams now, but they could be actually coding for NES or PCE instead of trying to justify their laziness.

[Anonymous No.1391942]

>>1391921
>they would have also created ultramodern, boundary-pushing graphics that overcome the hardware.
You know that's pretty much impossible, so why even suggest it?

[Anonymous No.1391943]

>>1391886
>>1391918
Man, even if you had a point, you're being so much of a smug asshole about it that even people on your side are liable not to chime in and agree with you so as not to be associated in any way with you.
Not even the guy you replied to, just couldn't ignore all of that smug.

[Anonymous No.1391950]

>>1391626
Yeah, it didn't look like that at all on a CRT unless you were sitting 3 inches away from it. At a normal 6 - 10 foot viewing distance it looked perfectly good, not all fuzzed out like that.

[Anonymous No.1391952]

>>1391950
They are just gonna yell at you that you didn't use the correct CRT. They always do.

[Anonymous No.1391960]

Blame emulator and lcd fags.

[Anonymous No.1391967]

Are indie developers "video games on platforms launched in 1999 and earlier"? If not, you know what to do with this thread.

[Anonymous No.1391973]

>>1391709
This is an interesting point. Home computing and home console gaming may have had very different feels due to the prevalence of higher quality displays. That said, I know for a fact that my TI-99 A1 uses a shitty connection taht leads to some bad graphics, but I don't know how commodores, amigas, pc-engines, or MSXs really looked natively.

Certainly IBM PC gaming had some clarity. Those monitors had good connections.

[Anonymous No.1391971]

>>1391918
How do you know what water is but you don't understand a basic concept like opinions?

[Anonymous No.1391978]

>>1391918
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVqIIIYEpng

[Anonymous No.1391981]

>>1391973
Not just that. VGA-era games were low in resolution, but they were line-doubled because VGA monitors were largely incompatible with 15KHz signals. As such, they looked more pixelated than console games did.

[Anonymous No.1392018]

>>1391973
I don't know about the others, but I'm pretty sure the Commodore 64 composite or RF.

[Anonymous No.1392024]

>>1391830
MAME's HLSL CRT shader on the last couple versions includes bloom too and looks very nice, plus is entirely configurable in-game

[Anonymous No.1392161]

>>1392024
Neat but when I MAME I either do it for test purposes or in a CRT.

>>1391973
All the platforms you listed were more or less made to be displayed over component. Several were RGB/CGA compatible but the developers realized lots, if not most, users would be on composite displays (or even RF - I used my 994A over RF back in the day)

[Anonymous No.1392176]

>>1391921
Indie developers don't have the budgets for that. Do you even know what indie developers are?

[Anonymous No.1392196]

The problem with indie games that try to emulate NES games is that they grossly overestimate the capabilities, and by extension game quality, of the NES. People still believe that the NES can display sprites with four colors. Not three colors and transparency, but four unique colors. Many NES games were obscenely short for memory reasons, and many areas were obviously copied ad infinitum. Those indies can make games with completely unique graphics and areas and avoid making their levels look and feel the same, where there isn't a single NES game that comes close to being as varied and long.

In short, those faux-NES indie games resemble actual NES games about as much as taking 20-30 year old people and giving them gray hair and calling them "old".

[Anonymous No.1392202]

>>1392196
Exactly. This is one of my beefs.

[Anonymous No.1392207]

>>1392176
Indie doesn't mean low budget, and low budget doesn't mean shit graphics. You've been fattened on AAA games which squander thousands upon thousands for little gain.

[Anonymous No.1392208]

>>1392196
They're trying to imitate the aesthetic, they're not actually trying to make a NES game. There's no reason to limit yourself to what 30 year old hardware could do.

[Anonymous No.1392210]

>>1392196
Also when they use transparency of any kind with 8-bit graphics. Don't you need 32 bits for that?

[Anonymous No.1392214]

>>1392208
Except that NES games looked and sounded they way they did BECAUSE of those limitations. Had there been no flicker issue, there'd be no need to make player sprites 16-24 pixels wide. Again, the aesthetic was born due to limitations, not out of choice.

[Anonymous No.1392212]

>>1392207
Low budgets and indie development go hand in hand, and I never said indie meant shit graphics, please read posts more carefully in future.

[Anonymous No.1392215]

>>1392210
Plenty of SNES games used transparency. Turning Cinder semi-invisible in Killer Instinct immediately comes to mind.

[Anonymous No.1392216]

>>1392208
But people throw around the words "8bit" and "16bit" for software that would NEVER run on 8 or 16 bit hardware.

It is truly the opposite of how it was in the early 90's when "16 bit" was thrown around for under powered hardware and software.

[Anonymous No.1392219]

>>1392215
Was it true transparency or dithering out every other pixel? Never played KI.

[Anonymous No.1392221]

>>1392212
Yes you did. Stop lying.

[Anonymous No.1392227]

I plug my Nintendo into a non-shit TV, it comes out looking like non-shit, capiche?

[Anonymous No.1392229]

>>1392216
I've never heard anyoen claim that any modern games are 8-bit or 16-bit. They may say they have the asthetic, but that's different.

They're just imitating a visual style, they're not trying to make games which would actually run on the hardware.

>>1392214
yeah, and?

[Anonymous No.1392235]

>>1392221
I'm sorry you struggle with the English language but this is an English speaking board.

[Anonymous No.1392294]

>>1392215
The SNES wasn't 8-bit though, try reading before posting next time.

[Anonymous No.1392301]

>>1392196
>People still believe that the NES can display sprites with four colors
Megaman (and a bunch of other late NES games) used four-color sprites for the player and bosses.
>Those indies can make games with completely unique graphics and areas and avoid making their levels look and feel the same, where there isn't a single NES game that comes close to being as varied and long.
Gimmick did this all the time.

You severely underestimate the capabilities of the NES.

[Anonymous No.1392313]

>>1392301
Uhh, Mega Man uses a trick for that. The NES can display 8 palettes of three colors each, four for sprites, four for backgrounds. Mega Man uses two of those palettes, the blue set for his armor, and a different palette for his face. The second palette is used extensively, such as Dr. Light or Dr. Wily also using them. The other two sprite palettes are used carefully, such as Napalm Man. He has his primary blue palette, with his orange and red palette being a second color. His eyes are made using Mega Man's face palette.

As for Gimmick, that's true, but it's also 40 minutes long at the longest. There was no NES game that was both long and had unique environments. Well, maybe Crystalis, but most of the game took place in the overworld.

[Anonymous No.1392315]

>>1392313
To add, that trick used in Mega Man is the culprit behind the intense slowdown and flicker that plagues the series.

[Anonymous No.1392361]

>>1392210
I thought you could do transparency on the NES by just making the sprite alternate between fully visible/invisible every frame.

[Anonymous No.1392508]

>>1391709
Early home computers were often run off normal CRT TVs, and what he's showing is true for all consoles to essentially seventh generation depending on your output. Composite output would definitely output like that.

Early 90s computing is when you had good VGA monitors coming in that looked relatively sharp but they still generally weren't THAT sharp, they tended to look like a lighter bilinear filter and had scanlines. It wasn't until the higher resolutions and better quality monitors that the DOS games were that pixellated when you played them on better monitors.

[Anonymous No.1392516]

>>1391798
Fucking artificial scanlines.

All they do is dither the image and make it darker.

I'll put up with my sharp sprites, thank you. I prefer the bright vivid colors.

[Anonymous No.1392526]

>>1391769
Your TV or output is messed up. My Atari had nowhere near that amount of snow or wobble. You can see text at the bottom, it should be readable not all fucked up.

http://youtu.be/0Oem60yvtUY?t=4m25s

Other than his broken reviews and his typical sensationalist bullshit and awful playing, the video is closer to what it should be like.

[Anonymous No.1392564]

My parents sold my NES circa 1994. I discovered emulation circa 1998. Until 2011, I didn't play a "retro" 8/16-bit console on ANY TV at all; just emulators.

I literally have more nostalgia for pixel-perfect, clear sprites than I do idiotic blurred CRT bullshit.

Why would I want my images distorted? Why would I not want to see them in the best possible quality? Morons like this make me think of people who swear up and down that cassette tapes sound better than CDs or FLACs.

[Anonymous No.1392624]

Scanlines have nothing to do with why hobbyists suggest the use of a CRT. On the old european TVs I use, they're invisible under normal circumstances.

Chances are they're popular solely due to being burned into the minds of then-young americans who happened to own inferior TVs with pronounced scanlines at the time. In other words, nostalgia appeal.

The real magic lies in color bleed, inerpolation and pixel spread. The PPU of an 8-16 bit console may employ dot matrices to send data to the TV, but the image is not displayed pixel-to-pixel like on an LCD.

For those arguing that scanlines help the image look less overtly bright and cartoony: that's what the contrast and saturation dials are for.

I have been lead to believe scanlines are a con instead of a pro in older TVs. I never even knew they were a thing until this board came about.

[Anonymous No.1392653]

>>1392564
>My parents sold my NES circa 1994.

Shit, man. I was BORN in 1994.

[Anonymous No.1392672]

>>1392516
>I'll put up with my sharp sprites
hell I remember when I first emulated back in the late 90's, I was super stoaked a game from snes could look so sharp on my computer monitor. Now we have people 'putting up with it'?

it's like, yeah older games looked slightly shittier on some tv's, but is it really something you want to re-create let alone get mad about?

[Anonymous No.1392675]

>>1392653
>>>/v/ is that way kiddo

[Anonymous No.1392684]

>>1392672
This. The first time I emulated PSX games in the mod-2000s, I had plugins that up scaled all the models. Playing MGS was fucking beautiful. Games with prerendered backgrounds don't come out too good, but other than that...

I mean, Christ, do people try to emulate the shitty blurry original Game Boy screen?

[Anonymous No.1392693]

>>1391626
nice dick by the way

[Anonymous No.1392695]

Decided to test some shaders on 4K since a few people are convinced its the answer.

That it is not, pictured is retroarche's crt-interlaced-halation shader on a IBM T221, its by no means an accurate shader, it only emulates scanlines, bloom and color bleed/interpolation. Yet you can clearly see the pixels of the LCD making up the "pixels" of the CRT, on a more complex shader it becomes a real problem since theres an uneven number of lines that make up a vertical column and you get aliasing as well as color shift which i'll show in a sec.

[Anonymous No.1392702]

>>1392695
heres a more accurate shader, it trys to draw a NA style CRT with inline pixels(this is where scanlines come from) but its pretty visible that this is not what a CRT looks like, theres simply not enough pixels to create all the colors in an even pattern and if i showed a un-cropped version you'd see just how shitty the colors look.

[Anonymous No.1392712]

>>1392702
this is how it looks as a whole using the first shader, its not accurate at all but it does look good(at least to me) and unless you try to apply it to anything over 640x480 it wont alias at 4k(from a distance).

[Anonymous No.1392730]

>>1392624
>own inferior TVs with pronounced scanlines

Pronounced scanlines is the result of increased sharpness, which of course is superior.

Why do you think people go through the trouble of obtaining a Sony PVM monitor?

[Anonymous No.1392731]

>>1392695
CRT-Geom is indeed not that accurate at 4K, because it was created explicitly with 1080p displays in mind. It made a number of sacrifices to look good at that scale, and does not scale well enough beyond that. 4K and above resolutions are a necessary but not sufficient condition to recreate CRT displays. The shader must also take advantage of the higher resolution.

[Anonymous No.1392732]

>>1392675

I have an NES, an SNES, a Genesis, a Master System, and an Atari 2600.

The most recent game I own came out in 2007.

[Anonymous No.1392734]

>>1392294
You should read before posting too. The guy was asking if you need 32 bit to do transparency and he was listing 16 bit games that did it.

[Anonymous No.1392742]

>>1391845
oh my god that looks cool

[Anonymous No.1392749]

>>1392210
No. 32 bits is 24 bits color 8 bits transparency.
You can have degree of bit order for color and transparency you want in your software or hardware. You could design a machine for 8 bit color 4 bits of transparency. That is, 2^8 colors and 2^4 levels of transparency.

[Anonymous No.1392810]

>>1392301
>gimmick had varied, distinct levels

All 5 of them too. Wow.

[Anonymous No.1392834]

[Anonymous No.1392840]

>>1392834
With some horizontal blur

[Anonymous No.1392887]

whats a shader
whats a filter
what

[Anonymous No.1392985]

i am amazed by some of the dumb shit you dumbshits are saying in this thread. the best part is that you're so young you think this shit is cool because you never experienced it firsthand.

[Anonymous No.1393084]

>>1392840
I think that's very close to realistic scanlines, although I feel that the lines themselves are a bit too pronounced and thick, they shouldn't be quite so visible, or perhaps this can be attributed to a lack of color bleed. This is far more in line with how I think NES developers meant for their games to be viewed, though.

[Anonymous No.1393091]

>>1392840
How long before indie devs make games look like this

[Anonymous No.1393107]

>>1393091
There are games like that already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kkFWqysmG0

[Anonymous No.1393810]

>>1393084
>perhaps this can be attributed to a lack of color bleed

It's this. It's a 17 inch dot mask CRT monitor with a fine dot pitch so there is minimal distortions at lower resolutions.

[Anonymous No.1393840]

>>1392840

And now high resolution 960p + GTU shader

[Anonymous No.1393853]

>>1391769
Your connection must be really shit if the screen looks like that.

[Anonymous No.1394012]

>>1393853
Nah bro you are obviously just underaged and never played on a true CRT. His picture is exactly how the developers intended you to play their games.

[Anonymous No.1394037]

>>1391886
>implying you can't play an authentic NES on an HDTV

[Princess Sevenleaf !AnVbXjgZco No.1394043]

>>1393840
>using a CRT filter because "lol authenticity"

Wouldn't it be simpler just to use a real CRT?

[Anonymous No.1394049]

>>1394043
>going out, finding and buying an old TV is simpler than changing a few settings in a program

[Princess Sevenleaf !AnVbXjgZco No.1394054]

>>1394049
>going outside

I can see how that'd be an obstacle for some people.

[Anonymous No.1394065]

>>1393107
This is actually impressively accurate. This guy really did his homework.

[Anonymous No.1394070]

>>1394054
it's harder to find place at home for a CRT

[Anonymous No.1394173]

>>1392526
>>1393853
Guys, guys. It was a Google image search result for "RF interference." The page it came from was a guy's journal of fixing his 5200's broken RF switch. That's exaggerated from what you'd normally be seeing over a fully functional RF connection, but that shit DID happen to varying degrees. I've been using the same RF cable on my SNES since '93, and it has always gotten spotty interference; nowadays I have to wiggle it around forever before it looks acceptable. My point was just that I see kids saying "There's no way games looked like that 20 years ago." and the truth is that real RF connections, depending on your personal setup, had the potential to look WORSE than the shaders can imitate, even if it wasn't THAT bad most of the time.

[Anonymous No.1394187]

>>1394173
But only poorfags used RF cables.

[Anonymous No.1394196]

>>1394043
That IS a real CRT, albeit a monitor, with some added filters to make it look closer to a shitty old CRT TV.

[Anonymous No.1394197]

>>1392564
>people who swear up and down that cassette tapes sound better than CDs or FLACs.

Not to go way off topic, but that one always made me chuckle, because just about every piece of music that has been recorded since the late 80s has been recorded digitally, meaning even an analog pressing would have bottlenecked, digital-quality audio. That said, I often prefer original masters or even demo versions of music with tape hiss and dodgy sound over digital overcompressed remasters. It's just a warm, fuzzy feeling I can't objectively justify, and it's kind of the same reason I play with filters, developers' intentions be damned.

[Anonymous No.1394245]

>>1392564
>Morons like this make me think of people who swear up and down that cassette tapes sound better than CDs or FLACs.

But Black Metal really sounds better on cassette.

[Anonymous No.1394297]

>>1394196
why don't you just add 320x240 resolution at 120 Hz?

[Anonymous No.1394327]

>>1394297
That would be the shot right before that, I believe.

[Anonymous No.1394371]

>>1392684
Sure. Motion blur and related phosphor effects are common.

[Anonymous No.1394376]

>>1394297
1/3

[Anonymous No.1394378]

Stop taking pictures from 5 centimetres away.

[Anonymous No.1394379]

>>1394376
2/3

[Anonymous No.1394382]

>>1394379
3/3

[Anonymous No.1394404]

>>1392684
Why didn't you play MGS Integral on PC instead?

[Anonymous No.1394441]

>>1394382
what game is this

[Anonymous No.1394449]

>>1394441
Mitsune ga Tooru

[Anonymous No.1394464]

>>1394449
thx

[Anonymous No.1394469]

Can someone post that arcade Contra filter comparison? The one of the Contraguy's cutscene face?

[Anonymous No.1394774]

>>1394043
That is a real CRT monitor idiot

[Anonymous No.1394779]

>>1394378
You have to if you want any details unless you have a good camera

[Anonymous No.1394807]

This argument, whilst technically right, doesn't really say much of merit.

When someone is trying to give the appeal of "retro" they want a throw back to the older styles, not the actual limitations that the games had to use back then.

If you wanted to nitpick further, you'd complain about objects on the screen, excessive colors, and even coding differences causing the inputs timing to sample at a different rate.

If you nitpick things like this, then a developer starts throwing his hands in the air and saying "fuck it, I'm done."

I'd rather give the few people remixing their old favorite genres a little leeway so they can give me a game that is fun and maybe reminds me of my younger days.

Case in point, the "retro" look of Binding of Isaac. Ed is trying to meet the demand you're seeking now and it's killing some of the charm of his aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.1394910]

>>1392730
Coz they're idiots. The quality of those screens is made redundant because of their lack of size. A good TV with component and a 240p source is better, easier to obtain and easier to setup.

[Anonymous No.1394923]

>>1394910
They are indeed easier to obtain, but let me tell you from experience, bigger TVs are at an increased risk of having noticeable convergence and geometry problems. So it's not just about lower sharpness. Overall PQ tends to suffer unless you calibrate the fuck out of them. Not to mention the bigger TVs will have pronounced scanlines anyway on top of all that in case that bothers you.

[Anonymous No.1394927]

Developers intended you to use computer monitors or at least Sony TVs.

[Anonymous No.1394946]

>>1394807
Edmund actually didn't like the flash graphics of the original and wanted pixel art from the beginning.

[Anonymous No.1394959]

>>1394807
>Case in point, the "retro" look of Binding of Isaac. Ed is trying to meet the demand you're seeking now and it's killing some of the charm of his aesthetic.

Binding of Isaac is one of the ugliest games out there now.

>flash graphics
>gross
>browns,
>reds
>puke death

gross.

[Anonymous No.1394964]

Play on a Sony Trinitron CRT.

Retro games look fucking amazing, and nothing like that shitty APEX shit in your picture.

[Anonymous No.1394967]

>>1394964
Oh hey, My point is 100% verified right here >>1394927


Neat

[Anonymous No.1394968]

>>1394807
Except as someone said prior, the "aesthetic style" old games used was due to hardware limitations and how the game worked. Limitations decide the art style, after all. I'm pretty sure you couldn't make a brown and bloom cinematic QTE fest with something like the NES.

Look at the intro of SF2, with that giant Ryu. If they had no limitations to follow, the entire game would look like that.

[Anonymous No.1394972]

>>1394807
This is a good post.

>>1394968
Ryu in the intro of SF2T wouldn't fit in a 2D fighter. The perspective is not right.

Sprites without limitations are the HD ones you see today from Arc System Works. Well, budget is a limitation, but graphics aren't.

[Anonymous No.1394979]

>>1394972

Graphics are still a limitation, even today. Not so much with 2D games, but then again, supposedly Skullgirls had some issues running on the PS3 and 360 as compared to the PC. I'm certain, though, that was a programming issue and not a graphical one.

[Anonymous No.1394998]

>>1394927
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.1395005]

>>1394998
That's from the manual for Archon.

[Anonymous No.1395029]

>>1394376
>>1394379
>>1394382

Am I retarded? I added this resolution, but it still doesn't show up on the list of possible resolutions. What gives?

[Anonymous No.1395062]

>>1395005
Archon was designed for home computers, of course they designed it for computer monitors.

It's completely irrelevant to this discussion, since period consoles only supported RF/composite and only a fraction of their users owned a Sony TV.

If you want evidence against your bullshit, take a look at any of the dozens of Genesis and early PC games that rely on composite color blending.

[Anonymous No.1395089]

>>1391817

No Genesis looks like that when outputting composite..

[Anonymous No.1395124]

>>1395089
That's a photo, anon.

[Anonymous No.1395341]

>>1395062
It was on the NES. And why would the developers have different standards depending on whether it's for consoles or computer? Particularly when it's the same game.

What games rely on color blending? The Apple II and CGA shit isn't color blending.

[Anonymous No.1395345]

>>1395341
I think he means how Genesis used it to achieve more colors and things. I remember one racing game used it to make road, but when you looked at it on RGB output then it didn't look right anymore.

[Anonymous No.1395349]

>>1395029
Try adding them in PowerStrip then.

[Anonymous No.1395376]

>>1391895
>Who cares? Go bitch about this on /v/.

Obviously plenty of people do, jackass. I wasn't going to respond to this thread until you shared your garbage thoughts.

[Anonymous No.1395384]

>>1391943

Don't be a fagette.

>>1391918
>>1391886

Hahahahaha.

[Anonymous No.1395386]

>>1395345
It may look weird on still frames but it's fine during actual gameplay.
Unless you can find an actual quote it's preposterous to claim the creator didn't want it to be played with RGB on a system that's capable of outputting RGB natively.

[Anonymous No.1395423]

>>1395341
>And why would the developers have different standards depending on whether it's for consoles or computer
CRT computer monitors have a greater maximum resolution, and in the CGA days most of them had RGB support.
>What games rely on color blending?
The best-known example would be the Sonic waterfalls, which are barely visible when viewed over RGB. It was also used for transparent sprites in a lot of games.
>it's preposterous to claim the creator didn't want it to be played with RGB on a system that's capable of outputting RGB natively.
TVs with RGB support were very uncommon outside of PAL regions back in the early 90s.

[Anonymous No.1395427]

>>1395423
Meant to also reply to >>1395386.
Also, there's actually an example of a Genesis game relying on that effect in this very thread. Look at the "transparency" in >>1392624.

[Anonymous No.1395437]

>>1395423
>in the CGA days most of them had RGB support.
All of my CGA monitors take digital RGB+I TTL signals, i.e. are not compatible with analog video.

[Anonymous No.1395440]

>>1395341
>>1395386
>And why would the developers have different standards depending on whether it's for consoles or computer
CRT computer monitors have a different design that allows a much sharper image, and in the CGA days most of them had RGB support.
>What games rely on color blending?
The best-known example would be the Sonic waterfalls, which appear as solid bars when viewed over RGB. It was also used a lot for transparencies; see >>1392624 for a good example.
>it's preposterous to claim the creator didn't want it to be played with RGB on a system that's capable of outputting RGB natively.
TVs with RGB support were very uncommon outside of PAL regions back in the early 90s.

[Anonymous No.1395443]

>>1395437
god damn it
this is what happens when I browse 4chan at 5am

[Anonymous No.1395459]

>>1395440
>Sonic waterfalls, which appear as solid bars when viewed over RGB. It was also used a lot for transparencies;
How about you don't press your nose against the screen? You don't need shitty cables or extra filters to do something your vision does naturally.
Print also works with blended colors but you don't wear extra thick glasses to amplify the effect even though it's obvious under magnification. Color monitors themselves use it whether they're LCD or CRT.
>CRT computer monitors have a different design that allows a much sharper image, and in the CGA days most of them had RGB support.
You're going in circles. Many people used TVs as monitors in the 80s, some even with RF cables.

[Anonymous No.1395464]

>>1395459
are you a potato

also, CGA/EGA doesn't even support RF

[Anonymous No.1395482]

>>1395464
If it's supposed to be transparent why are they vertical lines not dithering? Left version is superior.

[Anonymous No.1395526]

>>1395464
There were computers beyond IBM clones.
The left one looks fine, the right looks shitty as hell even when up close. I'm having trouble even recognizing the X from a distance.

[Anonymous No.1395578]

Was difficult to get a picture as of black lines whenever trying to take a photo, but in case of relevance here's a PAL Grundig CRT off of a Model 1 Megadrive with RF output.

[Anonymous No.1395593]

here's another neat example of color blending
raw vs kega cvbs

[Anonymous No.1395847]

>>1394043
We can't expect people in the future to use real CRTs just for gaymes. We should make sure that we can accurately reproduce the look while CRTs are still accessible, so that when they aren't we can still get the authentic appearance.

[Anonymous No.1395881]

>>1391626
99% of indie developers aren't _trying_ to look retro. They just don't have the resources to make fancier graphics.

I speak from experience. If I get make The-Last-of-Us-quality 3D models or beautiful 2D Marumasa art with the same effort of throwing together a "retro" pixel-art sprite, I would. But pixel art is the best I can do as a programmer in a field where artists with the required technical knowledge are the rare unicorn of game dev.

[Anonymous No.1395891]

>>1395881
>making game on PC
>can't into art
>make game for 32-bit consoles instead to reduce required art
>repeat process a few times
>now making a literal 8-bit pixel platformer for minimum artting

[Anonymous No.1396215]

>>1395593
They could have used that color if they wanted the bridge to have it. The "blending" just adds/emphasizes jagged edges.

[Anonymous No.1396230]

>>1396215
Is this bait?

[Anonymous No.1396250]

>>1395464
>>1395593
Right side feels astigmatic.

[Anonymous No.1396286]

>>1396230
Can't you see those hideous jagging on the right? Anybody claiming that looks better or is that the developers intended is trolling.

[Anonymous No.1396506]

I'm trying to set my Sony GDM-FW900 up for 240p emulation. I created this custom resolution in Nvidia Control Panel, and the test worked just fine, but it won't actually add it to the list of possible resolutions to choose from. Am I missing something?

[Anonymous No.1396664]

kek

[Anonymous No.1396667]

>>1391626
Did anyone tell Zelda to put his dick back inside his pants?

[Anonymous No.1397001]

>>1396667

>Zelda

HAHAHAHA no.

[Anonymous No.1397003]

>>1396667

Make like Kebab and remove yourself from the premises.

[Anonymous No.1397445]

>>1392695
Fuck, do you ever clean your tv screen

[Anonymous No.1397753]

>>1391731

[Anonymous No.1397789]

I'm not an expert on video output but isn't the reason why people recommend CRTs over LCDs because the latter displays raw output and reveals all the flaws that were hidden in a CRT with interpolation etc.? Even if shaders and filters aren't completely accurate in emulating an old TV they do go in some way of ameliorating some of the problems of raw output like blending/dithering. I've seen some great results with shaders like GTU geom

[Anonymous No.1398174]

>>1397001
>>1397003

[Anonymous No.1398187]

>>1397445
Static draws dust and stray hairs like crazy. Hold your arm near a CRT that's been on a while and your armhairs will get boners.

[Anonymous No.1398196]

>>1397789
The main reason to use a CRT is because they flicker, giving maximum possible motion quality. You can simulate this with a 120Hz LCD but it doesn't look as good.

[Anonymous No.1398214]

>>1397789
Only way you can get close to "raw" output from a console is if you use RGB out, and even then there may be faults in the hardware that introduces imperfections and artifacts somewhere down the line. Many SNES models that support RGB actually don't have the best RGB output, for example.

[Anonymous No.1398328]

>>1397789
no, that's why hipsters recomend crt's. Good non hipster reasons would be things like dealing with screen flicker and light guns (both related to timing). dealing with consoles which only output in coaxial or worse (like the tx16 or the old atari consoles.) or even to give your den that "nineties" flair.

We were well aware that our video quality was utter shit back then. That's why the NES had av cables as soon as it was released (the famicom didn't)

that's also why eurofags still haven't shut up about those scart cable things they invented.

[Anonymous No.1398339]

>>1398328

Although not impressed with LCDs, I'm so glad we have at least standards now.

>60hz
>1080p or higher
>HDMI or VGA cables

Nice simple standards. The older analogue tech was all over the place, with countless cable types, varying levels of overscan, 50hz PAL, vs. 60 hz NTSC, and all that kind of nonsense.

[Anonymous No.1398342]

>>1398339
>>1080p or higher
lol

go to best buy and check out the 1366x768 gook panels

[Anonymous No.1398443]

y'all niggas need to take a step back from your tv screens

[Anonymous No.1398458]

>>1398339
>I'm so glad we have at least standards now.
I've seen LCD televisions which don't have a 1:1 pixel mapping option.
I've seen LCD televisions with a native resolution of 1366x768 that don't report this in their EDID.
I've seen LCD televisions with no EDID at all, or a corrupt EDID which can bluescreen old graphics drivers.
I've seen backlights that look like Neons.
I've seen "120hz" sets which can't actually take 120hz input.
I've seen edge enhancement that would make Barbasol cry.
I've seen some shit, man, and I don't ever want to give up my Trinitron. It's a jungle out there.

[Anonymous No.1398480]

ITT: A bunch of faggots who play games for their graphics

[Anonymous No.1398491]

>>1398342
>Playing retro vidya on a cheap computer monitor

[Anonymous No.1398496]

>>1398458
Don't forget input lag on DIGITAL inputs. What the fuck is that shit?

[Anonymous No.1398502]

>>1398458
This is the world we live in, where panels are so cheap and shitty and profitable that anyone who can stuff a common panel behind a plastic bezel is now a TV manufacturer.

When the barrier of entry is so low, you get things like Vizio and zombie Westinghouse.

[Anonymous No.1398505]

>>1398496
>Feed 1920x1080 TV a digital 1920x1080 signal
>Any behavior except displaying exactly the input received
If I wanted to resample, overscan, and crop, I'd resample, overscan, and crop in the source device. If I wanted MPEG deblocking, I'd deblock in the source device. If I wanted edge enhancement, I'd edge-enhance in the source device. Over-the-air, I can maybe understand some deblocking and edge enhancement to counteract the ATSC compression process. Local sources getting mangled like this? Fuck you, fuck your shitty TV, fuck your whole damn company, and fuck everyone that was involved in this godawful mess of a product. This is why I never buy a TV unless it says "Sony" on the front: they're guaranteed to always include a "pro mode" which makes it a proper monitor.

[Anonymous No.1398507]

>>1398502
The worst part is, half of them are by the same Taiwanese ODM with the same shitty chink firmware. Same menus, same Engrish, same everything. Different brand on the front. At least Samsung makes their own damn hardware and their own damn firmware (even if they're kinda shit at it).

[Anonymous No.1398514]

>>1398507
>half of them are by the same Taiwanese ODM with the same shitty chink firmware
Fuckin' Chi-Mei.

[Anonymous No.1398546]

>>1398505
>friend's crappy 1360x768 display absolutely won't display its native resolution over HDMI from a laptop without overscanning it to hell
>try connecting the exact same laptop at the exact same resolution over VGA
>suddenly it's not overscanned because VGA is the "PC" input but HDMI isn't

[Anonymous No.1398601]

>>1398458

TRINITRON STRONK REMOVE PLASMA

[Anonymous No.1398608]

>>1398546
Seiki TVs are the same way. Nice, big, cheap 1920x1080 panels... but you need to use VGA or else they'll shit all over the input signal.

[Anonymous No.1398653]

>>1398601
No, remove plasma last. It's much better than LCD.

[Anonymous No.1398668]

>>1398328

>SCART

Tell me more about this Yuropoor space magic.

[Anonymous No.1398671]

>>1398601
REMOVE NEMATIC remove nematic
you are worst screen. you are the flatscreen idiot you are the flatscreen blur. return to korea. to our thin cousins you may appear our eyes. you may display the signs….ahahahaha

[Anonymous No.1398675]

>>1391626

I didn't know you played that close to the screen, buddy

[Anonymous No.1398682]

>>1398671

REMOVE NEMATIC remove nematic
you are worst screen. you are the flatscreen idiot you are the flatscreen blur. return to korea. to our thin cousins you may appear our eyes. you may display the signs….ahahahaha ,LCD we will never forgeve you.

[Anonymous No.1398716]

>>1398682

More?

[Anonymous No.1399197]

I beat Sonic 3 & Knuckles today. What's your fucking problem that you all need something that looks any different from this?

[Anonymous No.1399275]

>>1399197
preference != problem

[Anonymous No.1400427]

>>1398682

MFW

[Anonymous No.1402793]

>>1400427

GLORIOUS SERBA VIDJA GM