Where did this rumor originate?
Why do people legitimately think game designers sat down and thought
>Well, since our game signal is going to be transmitted through blurry RF, we will design the graphics around it.
I hear it again and again, that game designers intended their games to look muddy with scanlines.
Yet the original Master System included RGB natively, and 70s and 80s handhelds that used pixel graphics used LCD screens with no scanlines at all.
They knew it was being displayed on CRT screens, that is what they knew their images would look like. The OP jpeg is the perfect example. They knew or had a very good idea how it was going to show up for the home consoles. So wtf are you trying to say?
It didnt look like in that picture, stop being a dumbass
They were designed with scanlines in mind, consoles displayed 240p, not 480i
And for video signals, it really depended on the developer and console. Arcades where made for RGB
>FFVI come out on PC
>The character sprites are a blurry mess
>Someone already made a mod that removes bilinear filtering
>There are people working one updating all the sprites to their SNES version
God bless PC gaming.
but seriously i don't buy it. you dont lose any fidelity or fuck up the artist's vision by playing on an lcd. crt's dont enrich the experience in any way that isn't nostalgic and unless your picture is completely shot you can still see the pixels anyway.
Its not like developers had super sharp screens themselves for their design work. It wasn't an issue until LCD's became common place that people were suddenly having to deal with upscaling taking a relatively long time and pixel perfect emulation ending up looking like shit because pixels were WAY larger than they were in the past.
It's more accurate to say that sprite games were visually designed with pixels in mind, and the size of those pixels were relatively constant, with the whole issue of upscaling being a natural feature of the technology built in to displays anyway.
The whole issue basically became moot once everyone transitioned to polygons anyway. Then it became a matter of textures just becoming obviously worse once you went past a certain resolution. It's only an issue on /vr/ because people want to argue about their A/V knowledge or personal set up.
Dude, how retarded are you? Of course they were designed with that shit in mind when it was what tech they had at the time. They knew what they were working with.
Besides, SCART/RGB is definitive. Why don't you shut the fuck up and go back to /v/?
This isn't even an argument. Fuck off back to /v/.
>Well, since our game signal is going to be transmitted through blurry RF, we will design the graphics around it.
Yes, this is exactly what happened, you stupid fucking cunt faggot who should die instantly.
>Of course they were designed with that shit in mind when it was what tech they had at the time. They knew what they were working with.
My cousin used an old projector in the 90s. What about the scanlines on projectors.
>since our game signal is going to be transmitted through blurry RF, we will design the graphics around it.
>Yes, this is exactly what happened,
>Sega Master System supports RGB natively
>My cousin used an old projector in the 90s. What about the scanlines on projectors.
No you're right, the developers had literally no way of knowing that the pixels would blur on the major market device used to play them. Boy were they surprised on release day, haha, those were the days huh?
>developers had scanlines in mind!
Explain this shit then, Christians.
>It's a little known fact that game developers didn't have access to a TV when making games
>Until scanlines became obsolete, they had no way of knowing the pixels weren't clear, no way at all in the known universe
>Even less known fact
>Nobody who ever developed a game ever looked at a TV, ever, ever
It originated on /x/. There was a thread about telepathy in which somebody actually managed to read the minds of a bunch of people. Several hundred of those people turned out to be Japanese men who had once worked as Famicom or Sega Master System game developers. All of those people turned out to hold memories of the games being designed with that in mind.
It's understandable that you didn't know, since without telepathy applied to a large number of people, nobody could have found this out. But obviously this crappy forum where a lot of doughy, powerless men spend their time would have the special expertise for the job. Because we're special and important. We're Us! And we know everything.
> All of those people turned out to hold memories of the games being designed with that in mind.
This was the only evidence we had for the longest time, until somebody realized that TV's date back much further than first anticipated, and that it was highly likely that one of these men had used them at least once during their lifetime.
They were put to death for their knowledge, we now know that they may have even owned a TV for development purposes, but Travis had to bring it in from his house and his wife would get annoyed because she wanted to watch Roots.
Signal transfer seems like a distant concern as far as design goes. It really only comes in to play in a few 3rd gen and a lot of 4th gen games when pixel colors were meant to blur together. 2nd and 3rd gen were basically all about working within the limitations of the hardware. Who gives a shit if the signal is going to be RF when you're stuck with 4 colors per sprite at 8x16? Limitations on signal would only have come in to play during the 4th generation when you had 256 colors and sprite artists who wanted to get fancy with their colors to the point of alternating a pair of pixel colors to generate the impression of a 3rd, or because they could actually shade sprites now.
>Dad, had you ever seen a television before you developed Zelda?
>Television?? What's a TV??
>*Jumps out window and runs away*
They didn't design with scanlines specifically, but they would've been testing on CRT monitors, because that's what people were using back then. Colour LCD/TFT and such tech wasn't economically viable until the 2000s.
PS1 games were designed so that the signal would mask distant wobbling polygons and help remedy the lack of texture filtering, but of course PC mustards would blow it up to 1920x1080 and complain why the ground is made out of jumping beans, HUD looking like the most stretched pixelated shit ever and too noticeable dithering patterns.
The PS1 hardware and its output are misunderstood by most. It's not like the N64 where texture filtering can help with the eye strain at high resolution, or MSAA and anisotropic filtering, or unlimited internal resolution increase via emulation. Because you know, people think emulation is an accurate representation of the real thing.
Pic related is my PS2 doing 2x integer internally, with s-video signal. I love the texture mapping, the crispness of the nearest neighbor textures, the dithering on the smoke, HUD still looks alright, and oh look - no fucking wobbling.
RF does have as much scanlines as does the other signals if it's 240p... you're probably just confused because the OP picture doesn't have any visible scanlines (probably because it's photographed on a low resolution tube which doesn't really have very apparent scanlines)
>>Well, since our game signal is going to be transmitted through blurry RF, we will design the graphics around it.
Maybe because the monitors they were using to develop the game were also those same CRT monitors. Monitors without scanlines didn't even exist back then.
As far as I know composite cannot carry 480p, i.e. all 480 lines being drawn on the same cycle, which is 'true' "progressive scan". Half resolution negates the need for it, advantage being 60fps gameplay. 240p is 'progressive' only because there are no two fields to try and interlace.
So yes, composite only carries interlaced video. But the signal has to be displaying enough lines for interlacing to occur for this to matter, making 240 lines a weird inbetween.
Technically 240p is just a wierd hack on top of 480i. What does differentiate it, and this is what it gets the other name "Double Strike" from, is that the even and odd fields are aligned such that their individual lines will hit the same spot, compared with regular 480i where the even and odd fields will alternate using even and odd lines (thus the name even and odd fields)
>Ok, we'll just ascribe it to a difference in terminology.
In what terminology exactly? I'm a little lost.
>I guess those could be called 320x240 monitors.
Uhh, I have a set that does this and it's literally just an effect of the way the shadow mask was built. It minimizes its own scanlines. But it's a 480i, standard definition television.
Unless it legitimately has 320 horizontal and 240 vertical lines it's not a 320x240 monitor. It is the resolution it's built to have, whatever that is. As far as televisions are concerned, 480 lines is a standardized resolution and you will not find an NTSC set with fewer.
I'm sure they did, but I'm sure they also realised that many of their consumers would not have such monitors at home. As far as I'm aware RGB isn't really common on TV's outside of Europe, and while it may not have been a universal practice I'm sure some studios that would have worked with consumer grade hardware in mind.
I know it's fairly common in the music industry to make sure music sounds good on the speakers consumers are likely to have. I'm sure it's not unheard of. The transparency effects in some of the Megadrives 1st party games certainly appear to have been designed with lower quality video in mind. Though I've never seen any primary source confirm this.
There are visual effects in some games that mimic transparency. Clearly meant for CRTs. The designers knew the people buying the games would not hook them up to a PC level monitor...EVER. You watch some of the visual effects on a LCD it looks like blinking shit. There is no way that designers intended the graphics to be so blocky looking. It was just a limitation of the hardware. So there ya go.
So you're claiming this was how it was intended to look, then?
What's up with the color of that sword?
>dithering is made to work with blur
dithering is also made to work with your eyes/brain. Most dithering will give the impression of in-between colors with or without blur.
>developers didn't think about RF/composite
Some developers were obviously aware of composite, but usually graphics were planned out on graph paper. If it looks good sharp, it looks good blurry.
First of all, handheld LCD screens have "scanlines" as well if you look up close. It's just the blacked out reigon between each subpixel. If you can give me a good explanation as to how I'd make a game "with scanlines in mind", I'd like to hear it.
Dithered transparency in mode 13h. This was clear and sharp on original hardware, with no obvious scanlines. The dither was not blurred out.
And the same technique was used in portable LCD based systems, which also had sharp pixels.
but most flickering problems on LCD are related interpolation.
trasnparent characters after being hit like megaman x
waves on chemical plant's pink water from sonic 2.
etc. this kinds of effects looks like shit on LCD for its filters or like shit in youtube since the video runs at 30fps and not 60 which makes that thing even invisible.
even when some people says 60, they look bad because shit interpolation filter over the video.
poor 80s kids who grew up with shitty TVs trying to cope for their shitty childhood by convincing themselves that the games they played as kids were *supposed* to look like shit. They probably think high-pitched bad CRT whine and poor-quality speakers were intended elements of gameplay, too.
I was born in 1990 and I'm pretty sure I had never even seen a scanline before I started browsing /vr/. At the very least, certainly never any noticeable ones.
Those things on a CRT are all scanlines shithead, that's the way it's displayed. Your claim is the same as saying you've never seen a pixel. I'm looking at scanlines right now because I'm using a CRT, which I literally got for free because I needed a quality display with 120Hz and perfect display contrast and crystal clear with zero ghosting effect whatsoever. Something that you'd pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to this day to get in LCD.
I'm seriously beginning to believe that we're being had, that this is all one guy just making up nonsense and having a laugh at our expense. Nobody could be as stupid as OP and a couple of the people who've been posting here are supposed to be, and I hear also the exact same thread has been done multiple times before. All one sad, lonely little man saying nonsense things online and giggling to himself at the legitimate responses to it.
The last time this thread was posted I linked to an interview/let's play with a guy that worked on Disney games for the Megadrive. Looks like I'll be posting it again.
He says that the games don't look how they were designed to look when played on modern TVs because the artists at the time designed the dithering to blend on CRTs and create smoothe gradients. He also goes on to say that you would need additional technology to create that affect on new TVs (I'm guessing he means emulation CRTs with blurring and scanlines).
If the time code doesn't work, he says it at ten minutes into the video.
Sorry, I got the time wrong. It's 1 minute and 30 seconds into the video, not 10 minutes. He says immediately that you wouldn't be able to see individual pixels clearly back in the day, either.
Games have always been designed with the most probable use cases in mind.
Why the fuck wouldn't they be?
Games designed for LCDs in handhelds will be designed for those screens. Terrible viewing angles and blocky resolutions led to different color choices and sprite construction.
Games designed for use on CRT-attached consoles will be designed for those screens. Noise introduced by single-wire video was often exploited with dithering to create transparency or display more colors than would normally be possible with the game hardware.
If you didn't take advantage of something like dot blending on a CRT and your competitor did, their games would look better than yours and you'd have put yourself at a disadvantage. And for what? All because you don't know how TVs work?
This, and early GBA games were designed to have super washed-out colors to accommodate the really dim lighting.
Were the diagonal stripes intended?
Of course they were designed around it.
It's not like fucking video game developers magically had high definition flatscreen lcd screens while making games. They had the same tvs everyone else had at the time.
I've been outputting a 240p (256 x 224p @ 4:3 @ 59.97fps) signal from my Wii lately to play Link to the Past via the Virtual Console. I do so through component. Looks good.
Game Boys always used an LCD screen.
The Super Game Boy allowed you to play these games on a CRT screen.
These games look absolutely fine when played on a different monitor, without needing any changes.
And when NES games were ported to the GB and GBC, the graphics often had little or no changes.
I highly doubt they didn't know, at least for Famicom. Unless there is some dev unit that supported RGB (the Titler didn't come out until '89), the retail Famicoms that they would have used to test their games only did RF. The most likely answer is that some took advantage of the display technology (see: that recent MD Aladdin video) and others didn't care as long as they got their work done.
However, they all knew their games would be played on a consumer CRT, how a consumer CRT displayed (no shit), and that most people would use RF or composite (depending on the stock output capabilities of the console, of course). I guarantee you that almost no developers for the NES/Fami knew or cared that one day people would play their games in RGB.
>I guarantee you that almost no developers for the NES/Fami knew or cared that one day people would play their games in RGB.
Where is your God now?
I saw a video with commentary from one of the original developers of the Lion King game on SNES/Genesis awhile back. He made a comment about how the guy who was playing it happened to be using a TV that made the pixels look sharp (the way you'd see them on an emulator), and went on to say that that wasn't the look they had in mind for it. It was intended to look the way it would with scan lines on a typical early 90's TV. That way, the sprites would blur so they looked less jagged, to closer emulate the cartoon it was based off of. Here's the video, if you're interested.
That was just one dev team's take on it of course, I'm sure there were plenty on both sides, but it was interesting to hear someone who was an actual member of the industry speak out on something that's debated about so heatedly by people who weren't even alive at the time on the internet.
If you want the "authentic" experience just play it on a CRT like the Lord intended.
Are those emulator shoots or a real screen?
If real screen it's not an aperture grill. With a 'Tron or the right Mitsubishi you'd see clean horizontal lines with no differentiation via vertical lines.
>always listen to the CRTfags
>decide to get a TV
>plug in my old PS1
>looks almost just pixelated as an emulator
>plug in my NES
>still looks like an emulator where you can count every pixel
Am I missing something here? To get something like the OP picture I would have to deliberately try to mess up my cables or something.
It's a new year OP. Let's let this dead horse decompose.
You are questioning if the limitations of the medium had any influence on artists of the day. The answer is that it did on some and not on others. Which is true of any medium in arts history. Ever.
The mere fact that you recognize the existence of 'this rumor' is proof enough that there is different opinion on the subject. Here's a hint: artists weren't blind to their medium. Whether some designed based on what they thought would look good on graph paper, or others with the humility to also check if it looked good on a TV, welp, that's the artist's discretion, and the rest is up to how the audience receives it.
Same thing with scanline vs no scanline
Same thing with square vs non-square pixels
Same thing with how I set the tint and saturation on my fucking CRT
The only thing that matters is that you enjoy the art, not to tell other people that they aren't enjoying the art in the right way. Art transcends the artist's intentions anyway. Period. And if the artist can't define how their art relates to the audience, how in Sonic's name do you think you have any right to tell others their wrong on the subject?
If some millennial faggot can see the difference in 2016, I doubt it slipped by the people in 1985 who made it their fucking business to make kick-ass games because not only did some pour their souls into their work, their livelihoods also depended on it.
Fuck you OP. Let's stop posting in these shit threads together as a community /vr/. You guys are older and smarter than that. The janitor sure as hell isn't here to help.
Instead let's have threads exploring how people used their mediums, whether they used it in creative or other wise notable ways, and made us see something a little different in the little glowing rectangles that consumer our lives. Forget these bait threads and -est threads. ew. Elevate the dialog.
>designed the dithering to blend on CRTs and create smoothe gradients. He also goes on to say that you would need additional technology to create that affect on new TVs
>blend on CRTs
>additional technology to create that affect on new TVs
How do you explain >>2882119 then? He's wrong, composite is the source of the blending, not the monitor. Tell that guy to stop being retarded.
>When a lot of 8-bit games were coming out, LCD technology already existed
>There were inklings in the early to mid 90s that LCD screens were going to take over and CRTs were headed out
>By late 90s and early 2000s, LCDs were pretty prominent and expanding
>You think Game Designers planned to make their games with scanlines when they were aware other display technology existed and was becoming more commonplace
HD CRT monitors did NOT have scanlines. I had one in the early 2000s. It exceeded 1080, actually.
The guy who worked for ID Software and programmed Doom and Quake had one of the earliest ones. He was certainly not programming with scanlines in mind.
>god bless PC gaming
This is the problem with PC gaming. People is so willing to fix the games themselves, developers just don't give a shit about quality games on PC. Why even care to make it good if the community is going to do our job for free!
>And both are in the same ress, so what's your point?
The point is you scaled it wrong. If you are using a non-integer ratio (which you must in the case of SF2, because of the rectangular pixels), you must pre-scale with integer ratio nearest neighbor to avoid the uneven pixel size artifacts.
Despite the rectangular pixels, you can have at least one axis be integer ratio if you choose the right size. You get more sharpness this way.
>In one of my first conversations with Dan Malone, he lamented that stills of older games are now largely captured from emulators and therefore have hard-edged pixels. He reminded me that CRT screens gave the imagery a unique personality, and that the Bitmaps selected their colour palettes carefully, using the nuances of the display to make their visuals sing.
Dan Malone was one of the best graphic artist during the 16 bit era. He worked on most of Bitmap Brothers' games like Speedball 2, Gods, Chaos Engine, etc.
>When Miyamoto was tracing squares on graph paper to design Super Mario, the last thing we was thinking of was scanlines.
He didn't intend for him to be all blocky either, but that's what technology allowed him to do in the early 80s.
Also the whole reason for planning out graphics on graph paper is because in early games they were hard coded into the game as binary data. No Photoshop to fuck around with.
actually people playing on emulator see this.
stay pressed bitch
emulated looks best tbqfh
>Nintendo is an indie developer
The very people who make the game show it looking more like the "indie" example than any other. You are living in a fantasy world if you think it was supposed to be a blurry mess of shit like the example you show.
You're thinking of projection TVs, not projectors.
Projection TVs were susceptible to burn in, so things that would be constantly onscreen in a game (HUDs, scores, etc) could burn into the screen if the game was played for too long.
Burn in is an issue with CRT and LCD projectors. How you reach the conclusion that because an image is being projected from the back it's susceptible to burn in but immune if it's projected from the front is quite frankly disturbing to my faith in mankind.
Never let any woman tell you that CRT shaders look ugly on LCDs.
Could you give an example or something, what exactly they did to their art while keeping bad signal in mind?
And don't say dithering, because the same artists were using it for PC and arcade games that didn't suffer from shit signal and it worked just as well.
The scanlines thing is less of a factor than how outright blurry and grainy the picture was on an old 80's TV with just coax/RF. Even so, the games looked nice. Later on I plugged an NTSC Amiga 500 with its A520 (RF modulator box) into the TV and it was totally unusable in Workbench in 80-column mode. Just too damn blurry to make out the characters. I guess that's why they had a 60-column option, and that was good enough so long as you didn't spend hours staring at text. But otherwise it was very usable for games, and even doing pixel art in Deluxe Paint. Getting a real monitor later on improved things a lot though (although their 15 KHz 1084 series is still relatively grainy compared to VGA PC monitors).
Actually I just remembered there was another option in the 80's. This type antenna jack box was pretty common, as it wasn't guaranteed your TV would even have a coax port! Can't remember using this though, except maybe with a TRS-80 that my neighbors had.
So wait, was I not supposed to use the antenna cable thing to connect my SNES to my TV? Because from what I'm aware that was the only way to do it until N64 came out with composite. What does the antenna cable thing do differently?
Fuck this goddamn thread. Why couldn't it have died today?
Hint, nobody in this thread knows 'what the devs intended'. It's just them spewing their opinions and trying to dress them up as fact. I initially thought these were troll threads, but no troll could possibly sustain any level of amusement for this long on a no-where board like /vr/. Even if there was an actual fucking dev in this thread that developed retro games during the era in question and told us how THEY developed for particular games, they would still not represent the broad design methodologies of all developers. You would have to survey them all, and you are bound to find differing opinions on how to do art. Fuck, I can't even form a consensus half the time with my lab mates on fucking science, a field underpinned by indisputable objective reality.
It's like saying that all oil painters 'intend' their art to look like Van Gogh's, because hey, you really like how he did things.
This topic is so stupid. Who the fuck thinks people do things one way and one way only? Childish simpletons who can't wrap their heads around that the world isn't black and white, that's who. This whole cancerous thread is proof positive that there are different opinions even amongst couch-devs who will never put their own opinions to the test, let alone people who actually made it their fucking job to produce cutting edge graphics or be swallowed by the dog-eat-dog world of computer game development.
>It's like saying that all oil painters 'intend' their art to look like Van Gogh's, because hey, you really like how he did things.
No it's more like saying that oil painters intended their paintings to look the way they did when they painted with oil instead of looking like a shiny photograph of their painting. Which can be passable, but still not the painting as intended which we know because it's the painting they made with the materials they made it with.
Many of us know what the devs intended because we are massively brain damaged. When transparency effects work as intended and were that way for 100% of the people who played the fucking thing back in the day, we can pretty surely say what was fucking intended.
>Fuck, I can't even form a consensus half the time with my lab mates on fucking science, a field underpinned by indisputable objective reality.
That's probably because they're busy arguing with you being a fucking retard. Maybe find a field of study more suitable to your special abilities, like for example documenting all the different flavors of lead paint you ate as a child.
>Hint, nobody in this thread knows 'what the devs intended'. It's just them spewing their opinions
You should scald your own hands under hot tap water for thinking that game developers didn't think of the majority of televisions when developing games. You should burn them under your sink until they turn dark red and fall off. Also you have down syndrome.
Well, there are instances where developers use the blurriness of imperfect signals to their advantage. For instance, sonic having the dithered waterfall to give the appearance of transparency.
But for the most part, this is bullshit. The devs working on these games used RGB monitors to get proper image
>People is so willing to fix the games themselves, developers just don't give a shit about quality games on PC
Yes but they're so willing to fix the games themselves because the developers just don't give a shit about quality of games on the PC anymore. Why not fix the game if you paid for it and it can be improved?
This is just assumptions you're making.
Because a dev made a console game doesn't necessarly mean he took into consideration the specifics of the display system, especially when there are many display systems and 2 are not alike.
It's a base by case basics. For instance, in some games, a round circle will only appear round if apply the small stretching of a CRT screen. In some others, it will appear round if you don't.
Case by case basis. It is wrong to claim that "video games in general were built with the specifics of CRT tvs in mind".
Yet people like OP still insists it's "indie" developers that make their retro style games look pixelated. It's not just "indie" developers. It's every developer. The tiny handful of people in this thread are among the last on earth who care about or like the way games look displayed on CRTs.
>The tiny handful of people in this thread are among the last on earth who care about or like the way games look displayed on CRTs.
I love the way games look displayed on a CRT. Except when I mean "CRT" I mean awesome high-end PC monitor CRTs, not blurry shit-tier TVs. Good CRTs can show sharp pixels, and you get perfect low latency and low persistence for free.
>Because a dev made a console game doesn't necessarly mean he took into consideration the specifics of the display system,
Didn't say that. And you're right, it is an assumption. If you could explain to me how a person would be a graphic artist, create the sprites, play it on their studio television, and not be aware of what it looks like, that would be great.
But you're putting too much thought into this, the question is retarded because the pixels would be the same since there's only so much you can do with bits, but to say that a pixel artist didn't know what it would look like on a TV is a lie.
>If you could explain to me how a person would be a graphic artist, create the sprites, play it on their studio television, and not be aware of what it looks like, that would be great.
>but to say that a pixel artist didn't know what it would look like on a TV is a lie.
Nobody's said that. It's just what "CRT is how the devs intended it" people put in other people's mouth when we show them that not every game was necesarly made according to what it'd look like on a CRT.
Of course they knew what it looked like, but that doesn't mean they were creating the graphics according to that, that is to say, creating them a certain way on their computer screen with in mind how it would look like on TV.
Some did, some didn't.
It really varies game to game. Some games were nearly unplayable because of the text size or other details on a crt. While others look really off without that blur. Zelda 2 is a very notable example of a game that should be played on a crt. While something like sonic looks miles better on an LCD.
Well it makes sense in the modern day and age to make games more aesthetically pleasing. I mean it's 2015 and we have the technology, so even retro games could get that graphical boost they may desperately need.
I'm not sure what this post is trying to prove. Adding a bit of blur to those images is not necessarily analogous to the way they would appear on a real television. There are a lot of other factors that have to be taken into account.
The majority of them do, and most of the ones that don't avoid it using interpolation, which is unacceptable for games because of the very high latency. Strobing is available in modern gaming LCDs, but it's very rare in TVs because 60Hz strobing is annoyingly flickery and only gamers would consider it an improvement.
That's quite an exaggeration. The refresh rates on modern screens are far beyond human perception at this point so any difference that is there isn't noticeable unless you're the Flash.
>The refresh rates on modern screens are far beyond human perception
You need a refresh rate well into the thousands of hertz to be beyond human perception. You probably mean response time, which is now adequate on the very best TN gaming LCDs.
Response time and refresh rate are not the same thing.
And it's really not an exaggeration. Display technologies like CRT and plasma are inherently instantaneous. LCDs have taken years to get anywhere close.
they couldn't fit a cathode ray tube in a handheld console retard. also pixel art on handhelds is done in a different style that takes the different kind of screen into account. use your brain.
No, but the same company that made the game ordered the design of the calendar. They very obviously went for a pixel art style to show their games. And not just in one or two examples. In every single example.
Every time Nintendo shows their old games in "high resolution" they always make them look pixelated.
When Nintendo releases Mario Maker, it looks pixelated. There are no scanline filters to simulate CRT blur or a way to hook it up to a CRT. The game has clear, crisp pixels because that is what Nintendo has ALWAYS been shooting for. Since they started making games.
The fact that the look blurry on a CRT is simply technology limitations of the day. If you want to know what Nintendo themselves thought the graphics should look like, just look at the posters and calendars they produced and sold.
There is no reason think they were intended to look like the first one other than "m-muh feelz". All of this is subjective.
If you like the first one better, you are like some anime faggot retard getting wowed by something that doesn't look anything realistic but is clean, and you think it's cool.
>There is no reason think they were intended to look like the first one other than "m-muh feelz"
Actually there is, if you pay attention to what Nintendo themselves put out as promo material.
It has already been explained to you the marketing department put pixels in sometimes for effect I think they add something to the posters.
You really expect us to believe that Nintendo and its creators didn't know what their characters would look like on 99.9+% of home televisions? That is the ONLY thing they cared about.
The marketing department doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the development team. At all, really.
The sprite work, if printed, obviously would not have the same effects present when being displayed on a CRT in-game. If the assets were simply given to the marketing department for them to put together promotional material, of COURSE they would come out differently on paper, and in fact be edited to suit the new medium. That is completely irrelevant to what the developers were seeing during development, or wanted to see in the game itself.
"ideal representation of it"? wtf, why would they have pixels in the first place if it's their "ideal representation" of it? How can it be their "ideal representation" when in another place their ideal representation is completely different? It's not their ideal representation, it's the fucking artwork that is suitable at the time. The pixels are a nice touch because they emphasize that it's a video, not a cartoon. Sorry if you can't appreciate that.
I think you seriously need to take a step back and have a think about what you're saying because this is getting ridiculous.
Lookup nearly any LCD led supporting the displayport 1.2 spec. Your gtg is going to be anywhere from 1 to 4ms. While no LCD will ever beat a crt, modern oleds and plasmas often edge them out when scaling and shaders are turned off.
Any led above 120hz. This has been a thing since like 2012. So it is fairly modern but most good panels have a zoned strobing greater than 120hz now. Plasmas far eclipse that of course. And it isn't a necessary measurement for an oled. I still have my pvm hooked up for some stuff but plasmas and oleds are way better and cheaper than they used to be. You should really look into it.
>no LCD will ever beat a crt
Okay but in your last post, you claimed
>Many lcds [...] surpass or are very close to crt response times.
Which is what I was disputing; note that I expressly stated OLED and plasma were a non-issue in my last post, and that my original statement was that LCD response times (no other) are woefully slow compared to other types. Namely, all the ones you just mentioned.
I don't understand what you're arguing anymore. The original discussion was about the presence of motion blur on LCD panels; OLED and plasma response times were never in question.
>Any led above 120hz.
Hardly any of them do, because 60Hz flicker is obvious and annoying, and the benefit of higher motion quality is harder to market, especially as it doesn't help with common 24fps/30fps content.
>And it isn't a necessary measurement for an oled.
Strobing is always necessary for 60fps games.
Oleds don't strobe and create natural light. So it just isn't a measurable phenomena on an oled. And many 120hzs strobe two 60hz areas rather than being a true 120hz. And plasmas strobe many thousands of times a second , so it isn't a relevant measurement for those.
This is as hilarious as watching my Smash-playing friends claim they can feel the latency hit on an LCD playing Smash.
I can guarantee you you guys are putting more thought into this then most devs ever did. This is Vinyl vs. CDs 2.0: The Missing the Point edition.
>Oleds don't strobe and create natural light.
So they have either shit-tier sample-and-hold blur, or shit-tier interpolation.
>And many 120hzs strobe two 60hz areas rather than being a true 120hz.
That's a primitive scanning backlight, which has slightly better latency than strobing the whole screen at once. But you still very rarely see it, because even many people on /vr/ don't understand why 60Hz strobing is necessary. "Flicker free" was a huge selling point of LCDs when they were new.
>plasmas strobe many thousands of times a second
Which means they have the exact same problem as OLEDs.
>The marketing department doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the development team
Correct. They represent the company, which told them how to show their games.
The marketing department works for Nintendo. If Nintendo at large didn't want their games to be represented with pixel art, that's not what the department would have produced.
>Mario maker is an ugly game
You may well think so, but that is EXACTLY what Nintendo wanted and intended Mario to look like. If they thought Mario should be best seen on a CRT with the blur that comes with them, Mario Maker would have a scanline filter. Or at VERY LEAST an option for one.
But it doesn't. Because to Nintendo, clear crisp pixels has always been the ideal. From NES days right through until now.
>You may well think so, but that is EXACTLY what Nintendo wanted and intended Mario to look like.
You say that like I should care what a washed-up out-of-touch Japanese game studio wants and intends. Nintendo today knows less about the visual design of 8-bit games than the hordes of indie designers aping the NES graphics.
Don't get too bummed out when they start making pachinko cabinets like Konami.
You convinced me. I totally agree actually.
Clearly Nintendo meant for their games to be played on TVs that can show diagonal pixels and vectorized color lines per the box art of their most notable game ever, SMB, which you have so graciously posted for the rest of these idiots to see. Checkmate CRT faggots.
Too bad the technology to play these games as Nintendo intended won't exist for another 256 years, however let us together marvel at the forward thinking of the big N.
I think I'm forming a brain lesion by reading the comments in this thread
>You may well think so, but that is EXACTLY what Nintendo wanted and intended Mario to look like.
No, it's lazy faux-retro bullshit. Blocky pixels like that always looked stupid. If anything, they would have wanted higher resolution graphics, not huge ugly ass square blocks. Only deranged pixel fetishists actually think that way, normal people don't think blockyness (aka aliasing) is a good picture quality..
This is the stupidest rationalization from nearest neighbor square pixel fetishists I've seen yet.
OLED's don't strobe. They have zero blur, it's an instantaneous organic response. The subpixels are micro-organisms that are being zapped. It responds as fast as electrical current can, leading to sub .5ms total response times. And no it isn't a primitive scanning backlight. Is your knowledge really that dated on LCD's? And Plasmas have no perceptible flickering. Can you please stop posting misinformation?
>OLED's don't strobe. They have zero blur
And you are revealed as having no idea what you're talking about.
>sub .5ms total response times
Response time is a completely separate issue.
>Plasmas have no perceptible flickering
That's the problem.
Just so you know, posting that boxart proves nothing. It was created by a marketing/artwork team working for Nintendo of America and nobody from the actual development team was involved in any way whatsoever.
It actually runs counter to what he's claiming with the misaligned pixels and all, which is kinda funny. You can't say that those aren't 'intended' if you claim the sharp pixels are using the same box art. No picking and choosing.
Those are intended too. "Misaligned" pixels actually give you better motion quality, because movement isn't quantized. But unlike sharp pixels, which can be displayed very easily, subpixel alignment would require some serious effort in rom-hacking and custom emulator programming, so AFAIK nobody has done it yet.
>The subpixels are micro-organisms that are being zapped
I'm guessing you asked the little man who turns the light on in your fridge about that?
You could end the arguments by asking developers whether they took CRT blur into account.
No offense, but you guys are retarded if you believe that OLEDs are implemented with living cells. The semiconductor compounds used to make the LED are organic (pretty much read "contains carbon"), but not alive. Coal for instance is composed of organic compounds, but is clearly not alive.
Just think about it 2 seconds... if OLEDs where made from living tissue, they'd have to have some sort of metabolism, ie they'd hafta eat. I don't think you see too many people opening up the top of their TV and shaking flakes into it.
That's like saying game developers don't optimise their games for certain operation systems and hardware.
"Why do people legitimately think game designers sat down and thought
> Well, since our game is going to run on Intel Pentium II with Windows 95 on it, we will design the game around this, as well as the CRT monitors that they will use for the graphics"
Are you that fucking stupid?
why are you guys arguing like a bunch of nintendo and sega fans about which console is better, literally if you think it looks better blurry, play it like that, if you think it looks better with scan lines, then play with scan lines.
I play with composite on a home trinitron. Why? Because fuck I like crts because I like to play light gun games.
Fuck yous all
>Nintendo today knows less about the visual design of 8-bit games than the hordes of indie designers aping the NES graphics.
He's talking about how they were marketed in the NES/SNES days you retard. That's the point. Pixel art isn't a new "indie" trend. It's always been a huge part of video games.
>No, it's lazy faux-retro bullshit
It's not faux retro though, that's the whole point. Even back in the 80's and 90's they were going for pixel art. This isn't a trend of millennial kids, it's been a trend for all of video gaming history.
It's not my problem if you don't like it.
It's a bioluminescent bacteria that uses photosynthesis. That's why oleds have a relatively short shelf life. And why early oled screens had a short life on the blue subpixels. It's basically individual organic cathodes in a stack. Which is why input lag/response time is so low. It sounds crazy but it's taken them decades to get to a usable and cost effective point.
I am really disturbed about using biological entities in electronics. Fuck biotech trying to pretend it's like electronics, it's a liviing entity like we are. Trust me biotech will be the end of humanity.
>Retro games were designed "with RF/scanlines in mind"
The games were tested/played on tv's with RF/Scanlines, so they were designed with that in mind, dumb dumb.
in the same way games are designed with being on a 1080p screen now
Thats not to say it makes a massive difference
Exactly. Part of art is considering how the finished product will be viewed, regardless of how it was originally designed. Your computer screen might typically be displayed in RGB, but if you are going to print in CMYK, then you should consider that when picking colors. If someone designing Famicom graphics didn't consider how they'd be displayed in RF (and didn't check on a real Famicom), then they were bad at their job.
Of course they knew what the limitations of the displays were, but that doesn't mean they weren't still designing around them as opposed to for them.
Nintendo specifically (which is who OP picked as his example) has always worked with pixel art. The NES was designed to display 256 X 240 pixels. And to Nintendo who both made the system and the games, their goal was always for the player to see them as clearly as crisply as possible. Even though screens that were good enough to really do the games justice wouldn't be commonplace for a couple of decades, the clean pixel art style is always what they were going for.
It's proof positive when you look at the box art for Super Mario Bros >>2900228 which clearly shows a "pixel art" idealized view of the game.
It's more proof positive in the picture posted here. Any time Nintendo released high resolution images of any of their games it always shows crisp pixels. Because that to them, is how the games should be displayed.
You can play it on an ancient CRT if you want. And you can even think to yourself that it looks better. But OP's image is unquestionably and objectively wrong. Unless he's calling Nintendo themselves an indie developer.
>It doesn't work, the logic doesn't follow.
Every bit of the logic follows, and you know it. Look at the evidence in front of your face and it's undeniable. Screen technology has always been improving and the Japanese are especially fond of technological advancement.
They were designing NES games to be displayed images based on 256x240 pixels, but they and many others were always seeking better and better technology to make it look as good as it could.
And what does Nintendo themselves think is the best way to display those original designs for Mario? It's easy, just look at Super Mario Maker. They don't add a scanline filter to simulate the distortion of an 80's era CRT screen. They don't even give you the OPTION. Why? Because this is what Mario is supposed to look like. This is what Mario was ALWAYS supposed to look like.
Stamp your feet and yell all you want, but you're flat out wrong. And if you think about it honestly and logically for even a few minutes you will understand how wrong you are.
>implying you can even see scan lines without the assistance of a camera
I deleted my post because I was reading the other posts and I don't want to enable your nonsense. I already replied to this thread anyway so there's a flaw in me to feel the need to stomp on someone so stupid.
>They don't add a scanline filter to simulate the distortion of an 80's era CRT screen. They don't even give you the OPTION. Why? Because this is what Mario is supposed to look like. This is what Mario was ALWAYS supposed to look like.
But they do give you the option to turn on a filter
I learned something new, thanks! I say kudos to them for actually giving that option (even if it is pretty hidden) for guys like you. It doesn't change that they clearly prefer the high definition pixel art look, but throwing niche guys like you a bone is one of the things that makes Nintendo so great.
OMG you fucking tards.
>This is how it works
It is fucking not.
Sony for their jumbotron screens - those huge ones in stadiums - thought they were using too much energy and decided to breed koi in different colours. The theory was that fish scales are so reflective the screen wouldn't need it's own powersource or even backlighting. The breeding program produced the colours well enough to make RGB triads, but as a side effect the fish got smaller the brighter they got. This is a pretty well known biological law - the brighter something is the smaller is has to be. That's why little aquarium fish are so bright.
So anyway, Sony had these really bright fish, but they were too small for the intended use. In order to capitalise on the tech they made the screen smaller too. The O in OLED stands for organic because the fish are alive, and the LED is just because the fish act like an LED and produce colours. They make the fish swim in different directions with tiny electric fields, or by "electrorheotaxis". This changes the colours.
That's where the fish flakes come in. It's fucking fish food, what did you think it was for?
I'm glad that those who are against RGB connexions and aperture grilles are being so thoroughly BTFO. Looking forward to some scaynloins tonight.
Just wikipedia that shit bro. It better explains why Sony took this route, although >>2902583 did a pretty good summary of the technique. It boils down to ecomonics: growing fish scales is much cheaper (and more environmentally friendly) to produce than consumer grade semiconductors. Although the quality and durability of OLED displays are worse than more establish technologies, they are competitive for the bang/buck. The brighter/smaller relationship is simply a restatement of the conservation of energy, which is a very clever use of the basic physics involved.
This is freaky shit the more I dig into it. But still, it seems weird. Even with the fish that small they must be loosing a lot from the water distorting the light waves. Is that why these screens still have motion blur?
It makes me wonder if there's a future in butterflies. They don't live as long, but fuck they're fast.
It wasn't my sole porpoise to get the biggest TV in the pond, I just want to see my games in the highest def. Scale isn't too important I just want it to look brill-iant.
>I don't play games
Correct. This is /vr/. Any futuristic fantasy games you imagine you play don't exist here.
>I should tell my huge steam collection
I don't see why you want to collect steam. You're full of enough hot air as it is. If you want to talk to games try something like hey you pikacu. A game that's /vr/ and will actually listen.
>Developers don't take into consideration the type of display that 90% of their consumers will be viewing their product on
How long ago was that and on how good a TV? Was it hooked up directly to the screen with no uscaler? Or a PC running a ROM? There are many variables.
If lag on modern screens was really that bad no one who plays high execution games like fighters would be able to use them. CRTs would be the standard for the FGC, but they're not at all.
Zoom this down to it's original resolution and you'll see how the top image looks way better.
Old games were designed for their native resolutions. They look crisp and perfect like that. That's why they look better ON ACTUAL CRTs, they display these games in their native resolutions.
Scaling will look terrible no matter what filter you use, a shit CRT filter won't do it. So use whatever the fuck you think it looks OK, a real CRT with a crip image (an RGB mod for example) will always look better.
"sharp" sounds like a good thing but it's actually not. Don't confuse sharpness with good focus, you can increase or decrease the sharpness of a picture. Also you can see the ludicrous and UNINTENDED way Nintendo characters would appear if there was none of this smoothing.
anti aliasing didn't exist back then, scan-lines were the closest thing to imitate it. I see it clearly in Konami games like castlevania. you play it on a back lit LED or a LCD it just looks flat. maybe the color is bright and solid but it still looks blocky.
>how dare you provide evidence to support your claims
This argument is stupid. To say that game artists in the 80s and 90s didn't take the characteristics of the ubiquitous display technology into account when designing visuals is utterly ridiculous. No, instead, we're going to design them to the standard of a kind of display that won't be available for 20 years, that makes sense.
And if they DID have access to 1080p LCDs back then, they wouldn't have drawn their art in 240p.
If game developers in the 80s had known that in 2015, we would have the technology to make games look like New Super Mario Brothers, but we insisted on using 80s pixel art instead, they would think we were fucking crazy.
What decisions are made in 2015 have no relevance to what people were doing 30 years ago.
>And if they DID have access to 1080p LCDs back then, they wouldn't have drawn their art in 240p.
Uh, yeah they would have. If they wanted to sell their games or even make them definitely would have. If they had access to 1080p LCDs, they'd still have their memory limits on their cart size either by memory or whatever, carts are the size they are for a reason. So they'd have to use smaller graphics and they'd still have to design it around what most people have not what they have access too. Even if you traveled back in time with a 1080p LCD they'd still be like, cool but... we can't design for that it makes no sense and it's too cost prohibitive to even attempt it. Well at least for what ends up on the console.
Technically developers would draw their original art at way larger resolutions than 1080p then digitize it by hand or scan it anyways. But the art always came back low res no matter what.
You're missing the point. Saying that the original "artistic intention" of those games is reflected on an LCD is wrong, because the real artistic intention of those games would have been way higher resolution. Those developers didn't WANT to make 240p pixel art, I'm sure they would have much rather been putting hand drawn art into the game. The resolution was a limitation of the visuals, as was the video signal and display technology.
I actually think that the blurred image from composite video and a CRT is actually more accurate to the "hand drawn" look than sharp pixels on a digital display. When I was a kid playing video games, I never thought "wow look at these graphics made out of an array of pixels", it was more like "wow look at these little drawings on my TV".
Then you think they're crazy and that's fine. It's still reality though. It's undeniable that Nintendo was working with pixel art.
>they wouldn't have drawn their art in 240p.
The point is that the system was designed to output 240p, but people were always seeking better and clearer displays. The art they made represented an idealized vision of what the games could look like if you could see each pixel clearly.
It's why they put pixel art right on the boxes for the games. That was always their aesthetic goal. You can like the way Super Mario looks on a blurry CRT, but that's not how Nintendo thinks he's best displayed.
>If their "aesthetic goal" was pixel art modern murio games would use it.
Thanks for proving my point. Obviously pixel art isn't the only style they've used over the years, but their NES games in particular are all heavily based around it. That's why Mario Maker looks clear and crisp, not like it would have on an old CRT.
You can curse and name call all you want, but this is simply reality.
Yes there's a handful of examples of developers actually working with CRT distortion, but it was far from universal and at least in the case of Nintendo in the NES days they most definitely were not.
Yes but that didn't mean they were satisfied with how the games looked or thought the distortion was a "feature" to be worked with. A few did, but many including Nintendo didn't. There's really no debate there.
And ultimately it doesn't matter. It's your experience, play the game any way you want. If you like the way Mario looks on a CRT then that's how you should play it. Even though Lion King was designed with them in mind, I still prefer to play it on a modern screen like everything else because I think even high end CRTs are just plain ugly to look at. Just do whatever makes you happy.
As someone who's done embedded systems programming, I can tell you this: for every person showing off fancy tricks on a limited system, there's 100 more just trying to get the thing to do, full stop.
It's like watching a fucking english teacher examine a book in class. Making up shit to sound smart, fuck...
Well yes, of course. People should play with whatever display they like. No amount of arguing will convince someone otherwise. The only thing that will change a person's mind is if they see how a game looks on a certain display and then decide if they like it or not.
My claims are backed up by many, many examples both new and old of Nintendo's preference for pixel art. You can call me all the names you want but it won't change the facts.
they don't give you a filter with scanlines because even they are more used to the emulated look and they think most of there customers are. Scanlines are a thing of the past that most of people don't care about anymore. And with a filter like this it may even be misinterpreted as glichty graphics, they want to avoid support calls.
But this has nothing to do with our love to scanlines & CRTs. Prefering the picture of a CRT in 2016 is still kinda special but there are tons of reasons for it. One of them for sure was that the games and even the graphic chips etc. developed on CRTs. I think the most authentic picture would be on a 80s-90s TV and a non-perfect signal like composite. That's what the vast marority of people were using. But since S-Video and RGB were already available at the time it's still an no-brainer to get. PVMs and BVMs are kinda edgy because of the particular high resolution. But since they're the peak of CRT technology it's just consequential to use them.
Nintendo embraced that for boxart because it was an accurate representation of what the games looked like. The games looked like that due to hardware limitation. The reason they embraced that on the boxart, more specifically, is because part of the video-game-bust was because the content was not accurately represented on the boxart, tricking many consumers into buying games that did not look as good, or even play as well, as they were lead to believe.
It's not that Nintendo's goal was always pixel art. It's that pixel art is what the technology could do at the time, and so Nintendo fully embraced it in order to be as transparent as possible to rebuild a disenfranchised consumer base.
> it was an accurate representation of what the games looked like.
Are you blind or on drugs? If the games actually looked like that we wouldn't have all these fucking threads all the time.
I don't get his point either, and I put together the edit he is using.
None of these games were made for television by the way, but for the NEC PC-8800 series of computers, so they were made for specific monitors.
The point of the image was to get an idea of the color blurring that happens on those oldass monitors and how it was used to go beyond the 8 color limit of those computers, because that shit fascinates me. I think I might have jacked up the blurring way too much but the "expanded palette" is visible so I consider it done. The dithering still works without it in the clear shots on the left. It's hard not to see something resembling a skintone in Alantia at the bottom even though it's just a dithering of pure white, red and yellow.
I agree with your argument...except there is a way to simulate CRT blur in Mario Maker. Press down on the D-Pad, then B+A before a level starts and the level will have a CRT effect.
>if I knew
Only because I'm in a good mood
>Woah that game looks cool! If only I had a clue to figure out what game it is.
>What is this? RollcageStgII.webm?
>Rollcage Stg II must be the name
>google the filename and google corrects it to rollcage stage II
>Wow! Glad I found it thanks to 5th grade critical thinking!
>Why do kids insist on talking about shit they know nothing about that happened before they were born?
You tell me. Pong didn't even exist when I was born. I speak from experience, how about you?
Also, this whole "I disagree with you so I'm going to call you a kid in the hope that it will win me the argument" is idiotic. There was a time I never had to mention my age around here, now it's almost a daily occurrence to have to correct someone for pulling this ageist clap trap.
If you can't prove your point with actual facts and reasoning and have to resort to that then you should probably rethink what you're saying in the first place.