/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.5276598]

What's the consensus on software vs accelerated graphics in PC games?

[Anonymous No.5276615]

>>5276598
There's something appealing about the left.

Look at Quake 2 on ps1. It's jaggy and totally fucked up but it looks so cool

[Anonymous No.5276621]

Insufferable. I like how software looks and while accelerated isn't bad and it usually does run better, I absolutely can't stand the usual blurriness.

Thankfully, nowadays in a modern system a compromise is possible but for awhile it had pushed me off replaying old DOS games.

[Anonymous No.5276705]

I have to agree with John Carmack: software rendering is the way to go.

[Anonymous No.5276717]

>>5276705
But John Carmack was an early proponent of hardware acceleration?

[Anonymous No.5276728]

>>5276598
software = the way the devs intended
hardware = total (high-resolution) crapshoot

[Anonymous No.5276764]

left looks better, right is sterile

[Anonymous No.5277024]

>>5276598
Right is better.
3D accelerated has more depth. It looks more 3D.
Also the rough graininess is smoothed out, making it easier to interpret textures at a distance as well as being easier on the eyes.

[Anonymous No.5277047]

>>5276717
He axed a hardware-accelerated Doom port on Saturn in favor of software.

[Anonymous No.5277080]

>>5277047
And how did that turn out? For a very capable 2D system that could even run the 3D quake?

[Anonymous No.5277093]

>>5276598
now compare the two modes with the same resolution

[Anonymous No.5277107]

>>5277047
He axed it because it had texture warping issues or something like that. Of course he was in favor of hardware acceleration, he made GLQuake and Quake 2 and when he released the Doom source encouraged fans to give it hardware acceleration.