/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.5563524]

Should older games be played at the original native aspect ratio or stretched to 4:3, when given the choice?
Pic related refers to the SNES, but this of course applies to every platform.
I'm not entirely sure about the matter. I've come up with supporting arguments for both points of view:
>games should be played at 4:3 because that's what they originally looked like on the original console played on a tv at the time. some games account for this, and render some images internally narrower on purpose so that they come out correctly when stretched
>games should be played at the original aspect ratio (8:7 for the snes) because that's what the games really look like, stripped of any external processing performed by output devices. many games didn't really account for the stretch, and in fact look "correct" only when played at the original resolution. playing at 4:3 was a technological limitation at the time, and now that it has been overcome, there is no reason to compromise anymore
Similar arguments may apply to things such as CRT effects and the like.
What's /vr/'s stance on the matter?

[Anonymous No.5563534]

Old bait topic.
It doesn't look like either on my end, but especially not as the right picture. That looks like Mega Drive aspect ratio, not SNES.

[Anonymous No.5563536]

Pics look basically exactly the same. Autism thread.

[Anonymous No.5563545]

>>5563524
Only a real fucking retard would play in widescreen, but you do you OP.

[Anonymous No.5563548]

Old bait thread indeed, and soon everyone, and by everyone I mean CRTfags for the most part, will defend their preference with "facts".

The fact is, some games were designed with the stretching in mind, some (most) weren't.

The fact is, sometimes within a same game, some assets were designed with the stretching in mind and some weren't.

[Anonymous No.5563557]

>>5563524
>should underage post here
No. It's also against the rules.

[Anonymous No.5563561]

>>5563536
>rectangles look basically exactly the same as squares
In most cases, the original internal resolution is better. Most of the time games really didn't account for it, and therefore look better than they would on a 4:3 screen.

[Anonymous No.5563569]

>>5563536
uh they look completely different and if you can't see that then u are the autism

[Anonymous No.5563578]

>>5563536
This.
Just play it in whatever way suits you. Why are you asking a Tibetan throat-singing site how you should perceive graphics?

[Anonymous No.5563583]

>>5563578
cringe

[Anonymous No.5563678]

>>5563524
I play whatever my real console hardware outputs by default to my non-HD CRT TV and don't worry about it.

[Anonymous No.5563720]

everyone at the time played in 4:3 because tvs were 4:3

[Anonymous No.5563745]

>>5563524
>Should older games be played at.....
Whatever resolution and aspect ratio you want, who cares what anyone else that isn't you think

[Anonymous No.5563827]

>>5563524
Why didn't they design the console for 4:3 in the first place?

[Anonymous No.5563850]

>>5563827
I am wondering this too? I don't go online much and don't know about this shit and if it is a troll. Is the OP image actually legitimate? Because if so the left clearly looks proportionate to me, and the right is messed up, but you wouldn't know unless you were shown comparisons...
I know movies always had and still have their ratio messed up which is why Kubrick went to the 4:3 format for his last movies just so they couldn't be fucked up. but why were the games designed in a ratio that couldn't be used, if true? Would appreciate the info.

[Anonymous No.5563857]

>>5563569
The most noticable difference is the shading on the purple pipe, but other than that they are very similar.

[Anonymous No.5563860]

>>5563524
I played all these 8-bit and 16-bit games in PAL, so everything was squashed and the aspect ratio was completely ruined anyway.

[Anonymous No.5563864]

>>5563857
Also, the width of the background things.

[Anonymous No.5563887]

>>5563850
Yes, this is a real debate. Hence things like "pixel perfect" mode on modern HD mini consoles and ports. To me, the left image looks far too narrow, but my eyes are really used to 4:3 content. Also I'm a video dork, so I would notice.

I prefer 4:3 being a purist myself but honestly both are perfectly alright so long as you aren't playing in widescreen. Only real downside to 8:7 is you can't use an actual SNES unless you take advantage of some scaler adjustment.

[Anonymous No.5563919]

>>5563850
The pic really is legitimate, you can verify this yourself using an emulator.

[Anonymous No.5563924]

>>5563524
I play with the internal resolution and no filters or anything, just sharp pixels.
I don't care whether they kept aspect ratios and pixel blending in mind (most of the time, they clearly didn't), it looks and feels better to me that way.

[Anonymous No.5563960]

They were intended for 4:3. End of story.

[Anonymous No.5563968]

>>5563960
Most of them clearly look stretched on 4:3.

[Anonymous No.5563989]

>>5563524
I think that ideally a game should be played on the intended aspect ratios.
Mind that some ports and sourceports enable the use of widescreen, which is fine if it doesn't substantially affect gameplay or warp the graphics.

[Anonymous No.5564001]

>>5563968
It doesn’t matter. The only displays available in the day were 4:3. They just didn’t care enough to compensate when making the graphics.

[Anonymous No.5564120]

>>5564001
That's reason enough for me to keep using 8:7. It objectively looks better most of the time.

[Anonymous No.5564142]

>>5563524
original aspect ratio, upscaled and hq4x
>inb4 filter haters triggered

[Anonymous No.5564143]

>>5564120
Ok, but you’re objectively wrong.

[Anonymous No.5564153]

>>5564143
About what? Are you going to argue that most games don't clearly look stretched when playing at 4:3?

[Anonymous No.5564156]

>>5564142
Based.

[Anonymous No.5564176]

>>5564153
To use 8:4. They were designed to be displayed on 4:3 televisions whether the graphics accounted for it or not.

[Anonymous No.5564219]

>>5564176
The games often look better on their native ratio, and it's perfectly logical to use it because it looks better.
"It wasn't intended" is not an argument against it.

[Anonymous No.5564230]

>>5564219
Yes it is. Anyway, fuck this autism.

[Anonymous No.5564485]

>>5563524
I play games on real hardware at whatever aspect ratio my CRT is.

[Anonymous No.5564558]

[Anonymous No.5564560]

[Anonymous No.5564564]

[Anonymous No.5564680]

>>5563524
This handsome fella made a few videos about aspect ratio:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssluTgfkdlg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY8HAjJfSO0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvckyWxHAIw

Maybe he lurks here? I know he's on /r/retrogaming

[Anonymous No.5564690]

>>5564558
>>5564560
>>5564564
looks like neither on my TV.

[Anonymous No.5564761]

>>5563924
Pixels are infinitesimal point samples. Rendering them as big squares is like a filter.

[Anonymous No.5564771]

>>5563524
Get with the times gramps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9D-dDANHkU

[Anonymous No.5564859]

>>5563524
>squashed
Or
>squished

[Anonymous No.5564884]

>>5564771
/vr/'s not ready for this redpill.

[Anonymous No.5564912]

>>5564884
It’s actually cringe and blue pilled

[Anonymous No.5564946]

>>5563850
One explanation: The artists drew their assets to look geometrically correct given 1:1 even scaling or stretching in both axes, but the programmers incorporated those assets in an internal resolution that would not be scaled, stretched, or compressed evenly by the target display. The alternative scenario would involve making sure that the artists know in advance the specific relationship between the internal resolution of the game and the aspect ratio of its target display, so that they create the art assets with that relationship in mind. That's as simple as telling them, "internal resolution will be 8:7 but scale your art for a 4:3 display". What happens after that on the code and hardware side is more complicated because of the different ways you can manipulate and force an image to be displayed on a screen, but on the art side it's that easy.

[Anonymous No.5564992]

>>5564771
That actually looks neat. I played both N64 Zeldas with widescreen aspect override and it was great.
Not only did it work flawlessly, without glitches, the hack was also somehow compensated by the game in some aspects. For example, the circle created by the Lens of Truth becomes an oval with 16:9 override aspect.
IMHO, if you _really_ want the true, original retro experience (TM), the only correct way is to play on the original hardware on a CRT.
Otherwise, play it the way it looks and feels better to you. For me, personally, a bit of upscaling here and a filter there, coupled with the aspect ratio that makes the game looks more well proportioned, is the way to go. It's a more pleasant experience than the original.

[Anonymous No.5565135]

>>5563524
bait

[Anonymous No.5565338]

>>5564761
Your brain is an infinitesimal point

[Anonymous No.5565362]

Retroarch Snes9x and other emulators have a NTSC aspect ratio, it's not pixel perfect but it's less wide than 4:3, I think it's the best way.

[Anonymous No.5565403]

>>5565362
is this what you're talking about?

[Anonymous No.5565915]

>>5565403
I'm not on a 1080p screen right now, but seeing your image is 1440p, no, that's still 4:3.
Ntsc aspect ratio that is available in Snex9x, Nestopia, and maybe others, shrink the sizes a bit more. For example, here's a 4:3 screenshot...

[Anonymous No.5565916]

>>5565915
>let's ignore that I'm stupid and forgot to attach the picture
... 4:3... and...

[Anonymous No.5565918]

>>5565916
... ntsc. It's subtle, but it's a difference.

[Anonymous No.5565927]

>>5565918
And here's the pixel perfect one for comparison.

[Mr Socks No.5566065]

8:7 master race reporting

[Anonymous No.5566083]

Depends on the game. Some were intended for 4:3 to stretch the ratio out a little, some were intended for pixel perfect graphics. In this age of options, it's your call as to what looks intended.

[Anonymous No.5566148]

>>5563524
>Should older games be played at the original native aspect ratio or stretched to 4:3, when given the choice?

Widescreen as the developers intended.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9D-dDANHkU

[Anonymous No.5566161]

>>5566148
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOxdqnpQeUU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmAOPvHEhSE
I hope someone does this for the genesis, if possible.

[Anonymous No.5566163]

>>5566161

It sounds weird to say it, but the snes emulators need anti-scroptic filtering now.

[Anonymous No.5566189]

4:3 looks great on a CRT but you lose clarity stretching an 8:7 image on a pixel-based flat panel. You can only get "perfect" scaling at 4x multiples of the source resolution because only then can you accurately model the extra quarter-pixel worth of width added to each pixel. Some games accommodate for 4:3 distortion (yes it is distortion, stay mad about it) and some don't, just play what makes the game more enjoyable for you.

[Anonymous No.5566250]

>>5563827
Because to design a console for 4:3 you'd need a horizontal resolution that matched the agreed vertical one of 224 (NTSC action safe limit). An example of this is 320x224, as seen on the Genesis and other 5th gen consoles. That resolution is the closest you'll ever get to a proper 4:3 pixel ratio on any consumer CRT. Nintendo likely hardcoded the SNES' 256x224 resolution (and included the 512x224 dotclock for special occasions) so that people working with NES assets had a swell time adapting to the new system, and I imagine other engineering decisions came into play when deciding this hard lock.

Genesis/Mega Drive can use both 256x224 and 320x224.

[Anonymous No.5566278]

>>5565915
>1440p
1440x1080 isn't 1440p

[Anonymous No.5566282]

It should be 8:7 pixels, which is a 64:49 aspect ratio, because that's what it would be on a regular CRT TV.

1:1 pixels is okay since a lot of devs didn't take into account the stretch, but 4:3 doesn't really make any sense.

[Anonymous No.5566293]

A pixel is not a square, like omg so retro zoomers think.

[Anonymous No.5566449]

You can do whatever you want when you play video games so pick the ratio you like best

[Anonymous No.5566635]

>>5566293
Aspect ratio has absolutely nothing to do with pixel shape, dumb basedboomer.

[Anonymous No.5566647]

>>5566189
You lose clarity stretching an 8:7 image on a 4:3 panel anyway, whether it's CRT or not.

[Anonymous No.5566663]

>>5566293
>zoomers
>think
lol

[Anonymous No.5566696]

>>5566647
No you don't, there's no interpolation taking place, just a scan timing adjustment.

[Anonymous No.5566749]

>>5566696
Interpolation has nothing to do with it.
By having a different inter-pixel horizontal distance with respect to to the vertical one, distortion happens regardless.
You are absolutely deluded if you believe otherwise.

[Anonymous No.5566782]

Why yes I do use the smoothing option how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.5566794]

>>5566749
Pixels don't map directly to phosphors.

[Anonymous No.5566795]

>>5566293
not me btw

[Anonymous No.5566961]

>>5566278
Don't pretend to be retard, you know I meant horizontal resolution.

[Anonymous No.5566993]

>>5563745
>>5563536
>empty filler posts

[Anonymous No.5567005]

>>5566961
But anon, nobody's pretending to be retarded, you just said an actually retarded thing.

[Anonymous No.5567009]

>>5566647
No you don’t you retarded faggot lol

[Anonymous No.5567016]

>>5563578
>>5563745
>>5566083
>>5566189
>>5566449
Fuck off centrist faggots

[Anonymous No.5567053]

>>5566749
I said distortion, distortion and clarity are two different things fuckwit. You can distort a pixel to 1.25x it's width on a CRT and still properly resolve it, you're just equally timing 256 dots across the raster instead of 320. On an LCD this distorts *and* kills clarity because now you have to interpolate to fit 1.25 of a pixel into a little square box.

[Anonymous No.5567213]

>>5567009
Yes you do, stop listening to whatever boomers say.

[Anonymous No.5567221]

>>5563524
Have sex.

[Anonymous No.5567269]

>>5563524
Do whaterver the fuck you want. 8:7, 4:3, even 16:9, police won't come after you. Personaly, i think it should be based on the game.
>>5564176
Death of the author.

[Anonymous No.5567682]

>>5565916

[Anonymous No.5567692]

>>5565918
how do i obtain ntsc ratio on snes9x core in retroarch anyway?

[Anonymous No.5567727]

>>5567682
What the fuck are you even trying to illustrate with these pictures. They don’t feature any shapes that look out of place in either ratio

[Anonymous No.5567850]

>>5567727
how do i obtain ntsc ratio on snes9x core in retroarch anyway?

[Anonymous No.5567868]

>>5567850
Load a game in snes9x, open the retroarch menu, go to options, look for preferred aspesct ratio, default is 4:3, change it to ntsc.

[Anonymous No.5567930]

>>5567727
You're one of those guys that didn't see a change when we went from VHS tapes to DVD, aren't you

[Anonymous No.5568149]

>>5567868
is it the regular version because the core i use is snesx9 2010

[Anonymous No.5568156]

With stuff like CPS games it's clear that they were intended for 4:3.

[Anonymous No.5568165]

>>5563524
I dunno man, I just hook it up to the TV and play

[Anonymous No.5568437]

>>5568149
yeah i had to get the regular snesx9 core

[Anonymous No.5568440]

[Anonymous No.5568447]

[Anonymous No.5568568]

Pascal the dog sure is an annoying little guy, isn't he

[Anonymous No.5568582]

>no less than 3 months ago an anon and I had a heated discussion on this subject that went back and forth and dived extremely deeply into the subject with good points made by both sides but ultimately arrived at a mutual conclusion which was supported by data and historical anecdotes
>this thread appears
>realize absolutely none of that mattered and this issue will continue to be shitposted about in perpetuity

[Anonymous No.5568591]

>>5568582
well, time write a demon summoning program

[Anonymous No.5568634]

>>5567930
Only backwater burgers went from VHS to DVD. Real pirates weren't on dialup in the late 90's and just downloaded shit. Poor darkies had VCDs.

[Anonymous No.5568735]

>>5568568
He dies anyways.

[Anonymous No.5568967]

if you play your games at 8:7 then you need to get your shit fixed.

[Anonymous No.5569116]

>>5566635
ok retard, consider the following.

A scanline.
320 pixels over say, 32cm horizontal length.
You adjust the geometry on your TV so that it squeezes down to only the middle 30cm of the screen. You've changed the aspect ratio. What happens to to the length of each pixel, now that the entire row has been made smaller?

I'll give you a few days to figure this incredibly complex issue out.

[Anonymous No.5569125]

>game devs didn't intend for their games to be displayed on a 4:3 screen in the 1990s
Are they fucking retarded? Why didn't they put a label on the box "works best on an 8:7 television"

[Anonymous No.5569128]

[Anonymous No.5569131]

[Anonymous No.5569140]

>>5569125
>8:7 television
There’s no such thing you retarded faggot

[Anonymous No.5569380]

>>5569116
>you adjust the geometry of your tv
Which is changing the aspect ratio. Nice try.

[Anonymous No.5569428]

Is there a comprehensive list of games that do account for the stretching?

[Anonymous No.5569432]

>>5567269
>Death of the author.
A very heavily debated theory in literary analysis, not an argument.

[Anonymous No.5569507]

>>5569380
If you had extended your quote just a few words, you would have quoted him saying exactly that.

I can't even say you made a nice try, that try was fucking terrible.

[Anonymous No.5569884]

>>5568582
>rambles without linking it

[Anonymous No.5569892]

>>5569432
Death of the author is a perfectly valid point.
Whether intended or not, many games do look better proportioned in 8:7, and that alone is a good reason to play them that way.

[Anonymous No.5571567]

>>5569892
which

[Anonymous No.5571568]

Is this thread still happening? Just go play a video game already. If the aspect ratio is the make or break for you, you should probably find another hobby....

[Anonymous No.5572237]

>>5571568
I did, my new hobby is tweaking emulators.

[Anonymous No.5572332]

>>5572237
>not tweaking CRTs

[Anonymous No.5573767]

[Anonymous No.5573771]

[Anonymous No.5573773]

[Anonymous No.5573791]

I play the mario games adjusted for square blocks using the underscan function on my pvm
yeah I know I'm crazy

[Anonymous No.5573815]

>>5573771
Where do you find a rom of these? They're obviously not in no-intro

[Anonymous No.5573820]

>>5573815
Become a member of a certain very famous romsite and lurk the related thread. You will get them pretty easily this way

[Anonymous No.5573821]

>>5573815
>>5573820
*very famous romsite's forums

[Anonymous No.5573947]

It depends on the game.
Some were made with 4:3 in mind, while others were designed for their internal aspect ratio.
Basically, stop being a retard and if the squares look wrong just fucking push the button on your TV instead of making shitty /vr/ thread #72827202

[Anonymous No.5574119]

>>5573947
>72827202
>higher thread # than number of posts ever made on the board

[Anonymous No.5576136]

>>5573821
Good shit anon

[Anonymous No.5576143]

>>5569892
No they don’t you retarded faggot

[Anonymous No.5576146]

>>5576136
Did you find the goods, dude? And any other good news you have to share with us?

[Anonymous No.5576148]

>>5576146
I did, not really

[Anonymous No.5576183]

>>5576148
I know some guy over there mentioned trying to dump Neo Heiankyo Alien with no success, yet, so that's something else to potentially look forward to

[Anonymous No.5576201]

16:15 is superior.

[Anonymous No.5577675]

Don't you 4:3ers notice how circles are ovals and everything is stretched? Or are you all completely blind?

[Anonymous No.5577924]

>>5577675
I prefer that to ovals looking like squished circles.

[Anonymous No.5578339]

1:1 or 4:3 depending on the game, but I usually don’t care much as long as it isn’t stretched to 16:9

[Anonymous No.5578343]

>>5564558
some anon once took a pic of the same part using a capture card.

[Anonymous No.5578358]

>>5568634
What did the europoor mean by this? I think it's trying to communicate.

[Anonymous No.5579173]

>>5578343
was it the same?

[Anonymous No.5579179]

>>5579173
never mind, found it

[Anonymous No.5579202]

>>5563678
Redpilled
>>5564771
Bluepilled

[Anonymous No.5579412]

>>5563524
there was a thread a while ago that showed Mario's sprite while he runs up a wall in SMW is squished slightly horizontally, which might be proof that the intended aspect ratio is 4:3.

[Anonymous No.5579603]

>>5579412
I actually noticed and thought about this as a kid, I always thought it meant the G forces keeping him up against the wall were enough to compress his height

[Anonymous No.5579638]

>>5579412
>the game looks stretched 99% of the time in 4:3, while it looks correctly proportioned in 8:7
>it looks squished for 3 seconds! clearly 4:3 is the intended aspect ratio!

[Anonymous No.5579980]

>>5577675
too busy playing vidya

[Anonymous No.5580040]

>>5564771
>things just suddenly appear on the side
annoying even to watch jfc

[Anonymous No.5580052]

>>5577675
It's like you can do more circles with fewer 8x8 tiles if you draw them without regard for the inherent distorsion, you retard.

4:3 was the standard ratio for TVs at the time, SNES' DAC drew a 4:3 "distorted" image over 720x480. Cry more.

[Anonymous No.5580072]

256x224 games will look best in 8:7 if your display, scaler, or emulator support it.

8:7 will have uniform, sharp, square pixels. 4:3 will make them look irregular and soft. If you prefer irregular soft pixels, then something is wrong with you.

[Anonymous No.5580079]

Or you could simply be smart and upscale it to 1280x896 so you can both have uniform sharp pixels and have them look like they do on a real console.

[Anonymous No.5580086]

>>5580079
Why would you want to do that?

[Anonymous No.5580092]

>>5580086
Because you can have the proper 4:3 ratio with sharp pixels. Pixel does not mean "square", it just means point. Many consoles and computer video modes don't use square pixels. You can make them square if you want, but that is not the expected ratio.

[Anonymous No.5580094]

>>5580072
Retarded faggot. It looks correct on a 4:3 CRT and that is objectively how they were meant to be played.

[Anonymous No.5580098]

>>5580092
>>5580094
>It looks correct on a 4:3 CRT
Then why do squares look like rectangles and circles look like ovals in 4:3? Just because 4:3 CRTs are what people had available at that time doesn't make it correct.

[Anonymous No.5580114]

>>5580098
You are autistic and it’s not worth arguing. Just know that you’re objectively wrong!

[Anonymous No.5580140]

>>5580098
>Just because 4:3 CRTs are what people had available at that time doesn't make it correct.

Then why didn't Nintendo add a pillar-boxing function to the DAC or increased the horizontal border size? that way you could have muh square pixels and muh intended ratio.

[Anonymous No.5580164]

>>5580079
That does not make it 4:3 though. For that you'd need to turn that 896 into 960 but of course that would look bad unless you filtered it.

The actual resolution you'd need to have perfect, honest 4:3 ratio for NES/SNES games without any interpolation would be 17920x13440. Gonna wait for them 16k monitor boyos.

[Anonymous No.5580174]

>>5580164
>17920x13440

Which can be divided by 10 meaning 1792x1344 is also fine, you math reject.

[Anonymous No.5580180]

>>5580140
Who knows? Developers were probably expected to account for the aspect ratio when making their games, but almost none of them did.

[Anonymous No.5580191]

>>5580180
Because doing so requires wasting valuable tiles and pre-distorting assets drawn essentially on a grid, which could mostly mean loss of detail.

[Anonymous No.5580459]

>>5580114
How the fuck is he objectively wrong?
In many imaged posted featuring actual gameplay (not large scenes), squares and circles objectively do look better proportioned at 8:7 than they do at 4:3. This isn't a matter of opinion. Measure them yourself.

[Anonymous No.5581848]

>>5580459
Can't argue with someone as dumb as that. A game is designed in 8:7 and he thinks 4:3 is the way it was intended? LUL

[Anonymous No.5581873]

>>5579179
this looks more authenthic than emulators.

[Anonymous No.5581880]

>>5566148
>pop-in for a 2D game
never thought that could be a thing

[Anonymous No.5582275]

>>5581880
It's made possible by doing things the stupid, wrong way the way end users love to do.

[Anonymous No.5583498]

>>5582275
which

[Anonymous No.5583579]

What about screen size?
The devs were probably making the games on 42" TVs.
Any less or more than that is not the TV size the devs intended the games to be played on.

[Anonymous No.5584804]

>>5581873
It seems better at glance because you don't have the 8:7 image right beside it for comparison. The stretch is still there.