Abysmal on 8/12/2015 at 18:58
Edit: Discussed.
Sulphur on 8/12/2015 at 19:09
Whatever floats your boat. I was happy when it was the only option available (that's gaming with DOS pre-Windows 3.1, which ran at 800x600x256 colours on our ISA video card and was a bit of a revelation comparatively), but I don't see a point to artificially limiting the experience -- unless it's a healthy way to stop yourself from obsessing over needing to have the newest and shiniest thing beyond all reason.
ZylonBane on 9/12/2015 at 19:07
So this thread is... some sort of testament to your laziness?
Okay then.
EvaUnit02 on 12/12/2015 at 02:04
This is the sort of thing that at a wannabe pro CS1.6 player would do.
Anyway I better hope that you're still on CRT then, because with LCD and better technologies anything that's below the screen's default fixed resolution will look blurry. This is still the case even with scaling.
Yakoob on 12/12/2015 at 02:56
I think the question of 640x480 or not is in the artstyle - was it MEANT for that? I don't mind oldschool lo-res games or pixely SNES jRPGs because the artstyle was built to fit with the resolution restrictions. Conversely, taking modern pseudo realistic game and scaling it down just makes the pixelation feel really in-your face and gaudy. It's also why I think super-hi res mods for old titles with HDR and AA feel weird, as they accentuate the simplistic graphics of older games (particularly level geometry and blurry textures).
ZylonBane on 12/12/2015 at 07:07
Quote Posted by Abysmal
The more modern you go the more 720p becomes appropriate, but nothing today really is detailed enough to warrant 1080p yet.
Uh, are you talking about PC games or console games now? If you're still talking PC games, that is some insane nonsense you just spewed.
Jason Moyer on 12/12/2015 at 09:11
I feel like I'm missing a joke or something here. Anything that uses hardware-acceleration to render polygons is going to look better at higher resolutions. Unless there's a 3D art-style that somehow looks better with fat jagged edges on everything. Default old-school GLQuake looks better at 1080p, even with all of the assets being the same.
froghawk on 12/12/2015 at 21:12
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
I feel like I'm missing a joke or something here. Anything that uses hardware-acceleration to render polygons is going to look better at higher resolutions. Unless there's a 3D art-style that somehow looks better with fat jagged edges on everything. Default old-school GLQuake looks better at 1080p, even with all of the assets being the same.
Sure, but old school software rendered Quake looks infinitely better than GLQuake to my eyes. It's got a lot more atmosphere and feels much less sparse.
EvaUnit02 on 12/12/2015 at 22:17
Quote Posted by Abysmal
try playing old PS1 games at 640x480, like Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, so much better that way. Feels jarring at high res. The more modern you go the more 720p becomes appropriate, but nothing today really is detailed enough to warrant 1080p yet. You may prefer it but it's not even close to necessary. Also, If you're a hobbyist into high-res gaming and ever gamed at 4k you'd realize quickly your "ideal" 1080p is ridiculously low anyways. As for blurry LCDs, I don't really care about scaling; my devices handle that fine. I don't need razor sharp pixel edges. Still looks decent enough native or not.
Yeah nah. I've gone back and revisited many PS1 and N64 games emulated on PC (or newer consoles) at high resolutions. The N64 games minus the rubbish Vaseline smear texture filtering and PS1 titles minus the jaggies were like seeing those games come out of puberty. The original console hardware is rendered so utterly redundant that I should probably send mine to the dump (I wish that I could say the same about PS3. I fucking hate PS3, it's the worst console in existence as far as I'm concerned.).
ZylonBane on 13/12/2015 at 00:02
I'm now convinced this is a troll thread.
