"How the developers intended"

[Anonymous No.2416023]

After more than a decade tinkering with filters, resolutions, different emulators, etc... finally realized that if i want the games to look as i saw them on TV all i have to do is to put the rendering at my monitor native res, do not add anything that wasn't on the original game (as antialias or texture filtering) and just sit back and enjoy.

The games were designed to be played on a display that could adapt to different resolutions easily, so they were always at "native" res, by increasing the internal rendering resolution in order to not make them look upscaled the only thing they lack is the CRT distinct feel, and i'm not bothered by that.

Pic related, is Gran Turismo 2 as i remember it.

[Anonymous No.2416047]

Or you could just play them on a TV.

[Anonymous No.2416059]

You remember Gran Turismo 2 looking like fucking trash? That's a shame, because I remember it looking quite nice for a PlayStation game.

[Anonymous No.2416074]

polyshit ruined gaming, the end

[Anonymous No.2416137]

>>2416023

Devs intended that you played the game after investments of money.
The rest are just choices of the consumer.

I can roleplay being a dev for the whole experience if you want.

[Anonymous No.2416142]

In fact I'll put my roleplay payment platform here:

Input your roleplay credit card number:

-


Thanks for your payment, you will be entitled to gameplay now.

That one was rich: what devs intended!

[Anonymous No.2416160]

>>2416023
For 3D games this makes sense to a degree, although for Playstation 3D games it easily brings out the flaws more. Not to mention sprites intended to be displayed in 240p are going to stand out like a sore thumb.

Developers designed the games based on the limitations of the hardware, end of story. A TVs' resolution was effectively fixed. If you get a better experience playing the game a different way, that's cool. Just remember: emulators are far from perfect, especially 5th gen and newer. For a lot of games, it just might be a better experience overall to emulate, but it depends on a lot of factors and what kinds of quirks you're willing to tolerate.

All that said, it's a matter of preference and not worth arguing over.

[Anonymous No.2416161]

The games were made for consumer TVs. That's all there is too it...

[Anonymous No.2416164]

[Anonymous No.2416208]

>>2416164
>Buy a new Sony TV

Back when the Sony brand name still meant quality.

If that were an answer from the present day, I'd just laugh it away.

[Anonymous No.2416218]

>>2416208
The best TVs for games is Sony. And Sony still makes some of the best TVs you can buy. Think Samsung may have better OLEDs right now though.

[Anonymous No.2416251]

>>2416023
It comes as no surprise that someone who spent more than a decade tinkering with filters, resolutions, different emulators, etc... came to this retarded conclusion.

[Anonymous No.2417240]

>>2416164
What was the context?

[Anonymous No.2417326]

>>2416023
>played on a display that could adapt to different resolutions easily, so they were always at "native" res, by increasing the internal rendering resolution
wat?

[Anonymous No.2417425]

>>2416218
>And Sony still makes some of the best TVs you can buy.
Sony hasn't made the majority of their electronics for years, you stupid fuck. CHINESE "make" Sony products, while Sony just designs them.
That said, the only good Sony TV is the XBR line, standard Bravia series is pure shit and gets creamed alternatives like Samsung.

[Anonymous No.2417748]

>>2417425
They're mostly assembled in Mexico and Malaysia, you stupid fuck.

[Anonymous No.2417763]

>>2417748
>>2417425
>standard Bravia series is pure shit an
You're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.2417782]

I feel ya OP. When I was a kid I used to complain about the psones jagged graphics citing "PC is the superior gaming machine" and they would say "you have to look past the graphics and at the GAME man! Etc Etc..

If they had released the ps2 with improved Pone resolution I probably would have bought one but now, years I play them all emulated.

My friends moved on to new systems and sold off all their retro stuff (In hind sight I should have bought some of it off them)

Nowadays I post screenshots when I play Epsxe in glorious texture filtered/hid def and they all chime in "YUP JUST HOW I REMEMBER IT!!!"
Even though its an order of magnitude less impressive

Nostalgia is powerful stuff.

[Anonymous No.2417783]

>>2417782

[Anonymous No.2417790]

>>2417782
>glorious texture filtered/hid def
Except that screenshot looks like steaming shit.

[Anonymous No.2417801]

>>2417790
How about this screenshot?

[Anonymous No.2417804]

>>2417790
Filters don't work the same way for 2D and 3D.

[Anonymous No.2417861]

Funny thing you posted GT2. Some details of the cars like their brand logos or names are only recognizable at higher resolutions, some of them are pretty well done like Alfa Romeo or Mazda.

[Anonymous No.2417882]

If higher resolution screens were widely available then devs would have designed their games for them because they want the game to look as good as possible. So emulation at whatever maximum res you can get is truly how the developers intended :^)

[Anonymous No.2417893]

>>2416023
Get a PS1 (They're cheap as shit), GranTurismo, and plug it into a TV

Problem solved.

[Anonymous No.2417909]

>>2417790
>le ebin hyperbole!

[Anonymous No.2417916]

>>2417893
into a crt tv

[Anonymous No.2418090]

Gran Turismo was here.
Gran Turismo 2 is a loser.

[Anonymous No.2418118]

>>2417425
>CHINESE "make" Sony products, while Sony just designs them.
Welcome to every electronics company for the past several decades you dipshit, just replace "Chinese" with "Mexicans", "Malaysians", "Indians" and whatever other sweatshop country is cheapest.

[80.82.64.117/1cc/ (put in URL (...) No.2420818]

>>2417790
except for the aspect ratio it looks dreamcast quality you faggot

[Anonymous No.2422861]

>>2416023
You have a point but I'd say the pic you posted has some kind of bilinear or at least blur/smoothing filter going on the textures (except maybe in the OSD)

[Anonymous No.2422904]

>>2422861
Would you consider bilinear filtering processed or modified in some form, but nearest filter not? Which would you think is the filter "the devs intended"?

[Anonymous No.2422943]

>>2422904
>nearest filter
fuck me, make that "nearest neighbor filtering"
Anyway, both of them fill the space between the bitmap/texture samples with values, just in different ways. Both, have valid applications, and I wouldn't consider either "more authentic" than the other.

[Anonymous No.2424327]

>>2422904
I consider both of them processed. I just pointed out that the OP was talking about just raising the resolution and leaving the rest un-touched (including texture filtering) while the image in the OP clearly has the textures filtered.
Regarding the filter "the devs intended" I am not sure if they took into account upscaled graphics using the very same assets they made for the PSX, so I think it's up to personal taste.
While emulating FFIX on a TN panel I found out that having all the output with bilinear filtering and no scanlines got my mind closer to what I saw on the original console. I think it really depends on the game, it's original graphics, the options you have for altering them, your screen and your taste.

[Anonymous No.2424329]

>>2424327
>I consider both of them processed
What do you consider unprocessed? How do you determine the color of pixels that do not exactly map to samples from the texture map?

>un-touched (including texture filtering)
The PS1 filtered with nearest neighbor. In OPs image the HUD is nearest neighbor filtered, the grandstands are bilinear filtered. The unspoken question is whether the nearest neighbor filtered graphics of the PS1 were "as the devs intended", or merely a compromise between their intentions and the available hardware.

[Anonymous No.2424383]

>>2424329
>The PS1 filtered with nearest neighbor
That'd be unfiltered regarding the PSX. I wasn't considering this a "filter", as that's the most basic way of sampling a raster image that's been modified in size or shape to its new form. As I (and you) said, except the OSD, everything else is using bilinear interpolation. It's quite cool because CRTs more or less blurred the blockyness of the "unfiltered" textures, and it plays well with the increase in resolution, but the image still contradicts the text in the OP.

>or merely a compromise between their intentions and the available hardware.
In the case of the PSX they knew how the hardware displayed graphics so they designed it in a way that would work well with that and give you an illusion of realism more than an accurate approximation (I suppose). The devs intended Gran Turismo to be a PlayStation game so it makes sense they worked around that hardware during the design and development of the game.

[Anonymous No.2424395]

>>2424383
>I wasn't considering this a "filter"
That is the problem, it certainly is. I can accept the "most basic way" argument, though. I admit I'm being a bit anal about it, but it does bother me when people treat nearest neighbor filtering as unfiltered. There is no "default" way to interpolate, and even nearest neighbor involves a ton of assumptions (like the samples acting like little squares). I'd rather people be aware of the concept of interpolation, and choose what they consider the most fitting on a per-case basis.
For example in the case of OP's pic I'd almost argue that bilinear filtering is the "better" filter, simply because the textured objects (road, grandstands) are natural objects and the pixels on the textures do not represent any sharp edges or outlines. Bilinear, in this case, is a "more natural" filter. Meanwhile, for example, I'd play MGS using a nearest neighbor filter, because a lot of its textures represent artificial objects, like wall panels or pipes, and they have naturally sharp outlines, which would be destroyed by a bilinear filter.

>an accurate approximation
elaborate?

[Anonymous No.2424403]

>>2424395
> because the textured objects (road, grandstands)
exactly, the textures in Gran Turismo work nicely with bilinear interpolation.

>elaborate
Given the low poly count and the low resolution of the textures in racing games of the time it was very easy for the games to have cars that looked like matchboxes. Games like Gran Turismo or Coling McRae Rallie used real world scenarios, well approximated models, no sharp details on the textures, the way sounds were sampled and altered, the way how backgrounds and the visible part of the track blended, and many other things to inspire realism. Also, they tried to make the car handle in a way that could remind you of a real car even when a wheel and a pad are very different "input methods", approximating the responses to the ones you'd get on a real car (and the tuning of the parts as well). The graphics are clearly not photo-realistic but they went as far as to add reflections (even if they're not accurate you get more into the illusion than if they weren't there) and shadowed parts in the track with an approximation of the shape of foliage. Stuff like that.

[Anonymous No.2425069]

>>2416074
>>2416137
I got a job offer the other day from a game company. They showed me what they were working on: some shit phone game where you tap some things as they go by (the type of game you see cats and frogs playing in YouTube videos), and some dancing animation maker where you take a picture of your face and put it on a 3d model (it matches up terribly, like Game Boy Camera) and you can choose some different dance moves.

Rejected. Honestly, I'd rather go homeless. I mean, I won't, but what's the point of making stuff that's just going to be making peoples' lives worse?

[Anonymous No.2425273]

>>2425069
>making stuff that's just going to be making peoples' lives worse?
You mean, video games?

[Anonymous No.2425284]

>>2425273
I mean shitty games.