Moderator: JC Denton
by Dave_K. » 20 Feb 2008 23:59
by Farpenoodle » 21 Feb 2008 06:01
by icycalm » 21 Feb 2008 10:00
Dave_K. wrote:the Type X series is still just a commodity PC
Dave_K. wrote:Sega on the other hand has a proprietary hardware platform optimized for the arcade in both performance and cost.
Dave_K. wrote:Time will tell if Taito can pull a paradigm shift in the market by leveraging lower cost Doujin title conversions without mudding the waters with crap. Seems vaguely similar to the Console v.s. PC market for gaming.
by Molloy » 21 Feb 2008 13:04
by MAXCHAIN » 21 Feb 2008 18:50
Well, you can't place the blame solely on the publishers shoulders. Operators are just as guilty for not maintaining an inviting atmosphere for real gamers. Instead they appeal to jocks who bring their girlfriends there after the movies, or families with their kids who want a bunch of worthless tickets so they can purchase overpriced dollar store crap.It's a shame that Sega are dropping the ball as far as low cost, universal cabinets are concerned. I've always hated the emphasis on deluxe cabinets by all the major publishers since the mid 90's. The arcade market is very small and can't sustain all these expensive engineering budgets and hydraulic cabinets.
by Dave_K. » 21 Feb 2008 20:11
icycalm wrote:That's true, eh? They are using Linux aren't they?
by CosMind » 23 Feb 2008 04:20
by elvis » 21 Mar 2008 05:37
by Recap » 08 May 2008 01:17
by icycalm » 08 May 2008 18:31
by Recap » 08 May 2008 21:29
icycalm wrote:and to go even further it was stupid of both Sega and Taito to even use this resolution in their latest arcade boards and cabinets.
by icycalm » 08 May 2008 23:15
Recap wrote:Even if they add an option for a WXGA resolution mode (quite unlikely), who's going to use it? Those with 1080p TVs for a non-full-screen display?
So my point was that indeed there's no way these ports CAN BE perfect due to, once again, digital standards.
Recap wrote:Let's not forget that the 16:9 format doesn't help the video-game experience, much the contrary.
Recap wrote:Today, arcade makers just believe that 16:9 is not a good aspect ratio for video-games. (The question here, of course, is why the hell did they think that WXGA's 5:3 is, but whatever).
by Recap » 09 May 2008 00:12
icycalm wrote:Plenty of LCD VGA monitors support that resolution in 1:1 mode. If the option is included I couldn't care less who might use it -- I certainly will. And in that case I will certainly consider the port perfect, from a graphics perspective at least.
At the end of the day you can always hook up the PS3/360 to a Vewlix cab, if you have a problem with tiny black bars. The bars would not be the port's fault in that case -- it would be your monitor's.
Recap wrote:Let's not forget that the 16:9 format doesn't help the video-game experience, much the contrary.
I don't know why you'd say that.
Your premise is wrong, that's why you are left with that question in the parenthesis. I have seen VF5 played in both 4:3 and Wide, and though it is quite playable in 4:3, the game loses a lot in that aspect ratio. Sega, Taito, SNK et al. know this.
by icycalm » 09 May 2008 00:38
Recap wrote:"Plenty"? We're talking of 1280 x 768 LCD PC monitors here, Icycalm.
Recap wrote:icycalm wrote:At the end of the day you can always hook up the PS3/360 to a Vewlix cab, if you have a problem with tiny black bars. The bars would not be the port's fault in that case -- it would be your monitor's.
I think I need you to rephrase that 'cause I can't get anything you meant there.
Recap wrote:Because I'm not counting as video-games the pieces which want to be movies instead of games, I guess.
Recap wrote:But also because of human perception at the standard distance for this purpose. 4 : 3 is more "harmonic" and helps to focus. Paper, canvas, etc. are usualy 4 : 3 for a reason.
If the game is developed for a particular aspect ratio, it's normal it loses in the other.
by Recap » 09 May 2008 03:15
icycalm wrote:You misunderstood me.
And in fact, I think that you'll get black bars even in the arcades, since the Vewlix cab has a 1366x768 display, if I am not mistaken [Edit: Close, 1360x768].
by Molloy » 09 May 2008 09:14
by icycalm » 09 May 2008 13:56
Molloy wrote:That said I'd say that's another reason why widescreen isn't that important an issue.
Recap wrote:But I was wrong since most of the "HD-ready" models you can buy right now are indeed "1360 x 768", as I'm finding out.
Recap wrote:So now I need you to illuminate me a bit more: Why in the world has become 1360 x 768 a standard for "HD" TVs? That's not even "HD"! Is it for PC-compatibility purposes?
Recap wrote:More importantly! -- What do these "768p TVs" do with HD (non-1080p) games? Upscaling them (laughs!) for the full-screen display? Adding a black frame (laughs!!)? Or are indeed these games designed natively for1360 x 768 now? If not, what are they waiting for?
by Molloy » 09 May 2008 15:35
by icycalm » 09 May 2008 16:15
Molloy wrote:That said I'd say that's another reason why widescreen ISN'T that important an issue.
icycalm wrote:That said I'd say that's another reason why widescreen IS a very important issue.
by Recap » 10 May 2008 00:32
icycalm wrote:The answer seems to revolve around the concept of 'overscan'.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/21/wh ... 366-x-768/
Rob that is a great question and one that has come up many times before. I even asked the Pioneer representative at CES this year the same question. His response was that it was a PC resolution that has been standardized.
My 360 has an option to output at 1366 x 768, however, so, you know, the console simply redraws the game at that res and sends it to the TV... I bet in 3D games the difference is unnoticeable, and I don't think the slightly higher res has any impact on things like frame rate. It's like picking a slightly higher res at which to display a PC game.
by icycalm » 10 May 2008 13:22
Recap wrote:I'm afraid that link sucks.
Recap wrote:HD systems are not my thing you know, but I'm quite sure that option of your XB360 to output at 1366 x 768 is just digital upscaling.
by Recap » 12 May 2008 01:30
icycalm wrote:I know it does but I am still not sure whether overscan is a completely unrelated issue...
I am fairly certain you are wrong. Because if you were correct image quality would be diminished when you pick resolutions higher than 720p, and I've never noticed anything of the kind.
by icycalm » 12 May 2008 02:47
Well, in the case of the 1366 x 768 option being anything else than a mere digital upscaling (with the corresponding filtering), then the option just can't be hardware-based, but software-based.
On the other hand, I thought you said you only had experience with your 720p projector...
by Recap » 13 May 2008 13:47
icycalm wrote:I mean with a 360 you can even hook it up to a VGA monitor and get 1024x768 or 1280x1024, and those aren't even widescreen resolutions. Games look great.