Hardware

[NFG]

I don't know why the last thread was closed . It now appears open again. Anyway, carrying it on:

Dismissing Recap's arguments off-hand is the easy way ou

Normally I'd agree, but for two things:
1. I have a hard time understanding his point, since he's got an opinion but has so far failed to really back it up except with more opinions, and things that are unclear. I have a hard time understanding the point he's trying to make, and it makes my head hurt.
2. I'm advocating freedom of choice and he's advocating his myopic viewpoint. I'm saying vive la difference, and he's saying my way my way! It's not really a two-way conversation, it's me vs the wall.

Take the CPS II example. How can one respond to that? It is clear that, in that case, when you see the digital image you are seeing it in an aspect ratio that the designers never meant for it, whereas the result on a CRT is drastically different.

Widescreen TVs existed when they made these games.

Here's how it worked: capcom made games with wide horizontal aspects which, when compressed into a 4:3 screen, gave a very high horizontal resolution. So high in fact that many screens, especially smaller ones, couldn't display all the pixels, so in effect you were missing part of the art. On a wide screen you'd get the full picture, and yes, it'd be stretched out in comparison, but hey: they've been doing this with movies for years, compressing or cropping them to fit screens. So what?

I had this trouble with my book (yes recap, I wrote a book, I'm fucking awesome, shut up about it), and I had a small discussion about this regarding the Capcom GnG sprites. Basically some games were presented in a square resolution and the sprites appeared wider (stretched) on the screen, while some were widescreen and appeared narrower on the screen.

Capcom couldn't account for different screen aspects, smaller screens with lots of art missing on account of overscan, badly calibrated screens with top-curl or rollover or any of a hundred differences 'in the wild'. There's no ideal display, it's all up to preferences.

So hey, I'm advocating freedom of choice.

[Recap]

The pile of HORSESHIT you put there is so outstanding I'm seriously thinking about removing your site from Postback's link page.Get a clue.

[icycalm]

Normally I'd agree, but for two things:
1. I have a hard time understanding his point, since he's got an opinion but has so far failed to really back it up except with more opinions, and things that are unclear. I have a hard time understanding the point he's trying to make, and it makes my head hurt.
2. I'm advocating freedom of choice and he's advocating his myopic viewpoint. I'm saying vive la difference, and he's saying my way my way! It's not really a two-way conversation, it's me vs the wall.

It is true that sometimes he throws things out there without bothering to explain them. I do that too when posting on SB or some other crappy forum full of morons, because in places like that it's not really worth the effort. Naturally, we are all intelligent, knowledgeable people here, so we expect better than that. Having said that, when he just threw out the "aspect ratio" comment and that screenshot, it's the kind of thing anyone here should get with no explanation. I am surprised you had to ask for clarification, especially since it's now obvious that you were well aware of what he meant.

On a wide screen you'd get the full picture, and yes, it'd be stretched out in comparison, but hey: they've been doing this with movies for years, compressing or cropping them to fit screens. So what?

Pulitzer-prize winning critic ranting against improper display of films:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... Y/70925003

"So what?"

If we don't rave about this sort of thing, who will? IGN?

So hey, I'm advocating freedom of choice.

Me too, as long as it is informed. I.e. as long as people know that XBLA SFII, for example, looks much inferior to the real thing, then they can go ahead and play it if the want to. However, most of them don't, which is were the raving and the ranting comes in.

[icycalm]

The pile of HORSESHIT you put there is so outstanding I'm seriously thinking about removing your site from Postback's link page.Get a clue.

Recap, man, come on. NFG is not some fucker from some random forum. If you can't be bothered to explain why his post is horseshit, then please don't call it that. And don't tell me that after reading your article it will all become obvious, because I've read it and it isn't and I am not some random godamned moron.

Can you guys both imagine that we are sitting in a coffee shop somewhere having this conversation? If you are going to be calling each other names, then we might as well just stop talking. Are you enjoying this?

Come on. Please don't shit in my forum. Have a little respect for me, and for each other.

[Recap]

NFG is not some fucker from some random forum.

Hum. He's clueless, he think he isn't and is beyond any learning possiblities, he replies with insults and condescension. No explanation to his points whatsoever. Post after post...

I'm sorry for so many "shit", but check both threads once again and let me know your feelings. Anyhow, I have nothing against him, even now. Just giving him what he's asking for.

What he wrote there still is HORSESHIT, anyhow. If you find a better word, let me know!

[NFG]

Recap: You're still maintaining that there's some value in displaying pixels 'as the creator intended'. Personally I think this is elitist bullshit, but I do love a difference of opinion. The world would be boring if everyone agreed with me.

I like doing things my way and I'm not convinced you're right when you spout stuff like:

line-doubling is an artifact which can't help to really appreciate the actual sprite art since sprites are *never* scaled nor intended to be artificially scaled.

Yeah, I didn't ask the artists what they intended or preferred because basically I don't care. It's mine now and I'll do what I want to do, and admire it my own way. Telling people how to enjoy something is pretty remarkably silly.

Icy: I love a good argument because it challenges my own view and makes me look at things from another angle. I'm frustrated with what I see as recap's inability to be clear and open minded, but the discussion itself is interesting.

Recap: If you want to denigrate everything I've ever said because we disagree on one point, more power to you. =/

edited to add:

I am surprised you had to ask for clarification, especially since it's now obvious that you were well aware of what he meant.

Actually, while I'm aware NOW, I wasn't THEN. Showing a screenshot and saying "I suppose you think this is OK?" doesn't give any indication about what he's talking about. Also, since I can count on one hand the number of capcom fighters I've ever played outside an emulated environment, that screenshot and sprite meant absolutely nothing to me: they didn't look unusual.

[icycalm]

Yeah, I didn't ask the artists what they intended or preferred because basically I don't care. It's mine now and I'll do things with it that I want to do and admire it my own way. Telling people how to enjoy something is pretty remarkably silly.

Well, you can tell people how to enjoy something -- for example, I tell people to play arcade games without continuing -- and there is of course some value in that, but you can't expect them to all follow your advice. The important thing is to explain to them as clearly as you can why it is you do things they way you do them. There will still be many who will disagree with you of course, but as long as you have given them the chance to understand your motives, you've done all that you could do, and all that can be reasonably expected of you.

Recap: If you want to denigrate everything I've ever said because we disagree on one point, more power to you. =/

That comment about the link was indeed rather lame, Recap.

[NFG]

Finally, regarding the Get a clue page, I've read that before and I find it hard to read, and generally explains things I already know.

One of the drawbacks of pixel art is that it doesn't scale well and it doesn't look good on any fixed-resolution screen unless displayed at the native resolution. Everyone knows this.

Your complaint, recap, is that it's not authentic and my complaint is that your methods don't look good. We're having different arguments.

[icycalm]

What he wrote there still is HORSESHIT, anyhow. If you find a better word, let me know!

Let me try to explain why you are being an asshole here.

Back in that AH thread, I could have called your opinions on the lameness of the game's theme as horseshit (because that's what I think they are) if I wanted to, but instead I reasoned with you as much as I could. I said all I had to say and then I said no more.

Can you make an effort to extend the same courtesy to NFG?

And if you think that at one point he insulted you, can you try to stop the conversation at that point, and demand an immediate apology? Just as I did, more or less, when I felt that your constant "lame this" "lame that" comments were offending me personally?

This is the way to conduct a civilized conversation. That is to say, the only way.

[Recap]

line-doubling is an artifact which can't help to really appreciate the actual sprite art since sprites are *never* scaled nor intended to be artificially scaled.

Yeah, I didn't ask the artists what they intended or preferred because basically I don't care. It's mine now and I'll do what I want to do, and admire it my own way. Telling people how to enjoy something is pretty remarkably silly.

What Icycalm said.

Recap: If you want to denigrate everything I've ever said because we disagree on one point, more power to you. =/

NFG: Read -- I'm not "denigrating" anything you said. It "denigrates" itself. What I've been discussing is not "a matter of opinions". As I've told you, I'm not interested in discussing "tastes". I'm discussing technical aspects. "Facts". Things which one can't agree with and the other disagree with. And that's what you're failing to get.

Lines like this:

Here's how it worked: capcom made games with wide horizontal aspects which, when compressed into a 4:3 screen, gave a very high horizontal resolution. So high in fact that many screens, especially smaller ones, couldn't display all the pixels, so in effect you were missing part of the art. On a wide screen you'd get the full picture, and yes, it'd be stretched out in comparison,

are not exposing an "opinion". You're describing an invented, assumed situation as a fact which it's utterly FALSE (notice I'm not using HORSESHIT here, Icy). Yet, you still believe it's correct, no matter if I link a deep article about all the technicalities involved. Your reply: "generally explains things I already know". And there you have it -- you know nothing. : (

That comment about the link was indeed rather lame, Recap.

The one about NFG's site? Can't see why. As far as I've reached, his site is amazing and I have it there since the day one. He has information which nobody else has nor can ever have. Still, today I'm realizing his articles may have the kind of shit he's writing here. Wrong assumptions as facts. "Misinformation". And I don't want my visitors to get misinformed because of me.

Let me try to explain why you are being an asshole here.

Back in that AH thread, I could have called your opinions on the lameness of the game's theme as horseshit (because that's what I think they are) if I wanted to, but instead I reasoned with you as much as I could. I said all I had to say and then I said no more.

Let me try to explain why that comparison isn't valid:

In the AH I didn't use adjectives like "silly", "ridiculous" and "crap" to qualify your arguments or even yourself. I wasn't using pointless condescension, either. Check both threads, and if you find a real analogy, I'll edit my posts. And nope, when they're _direct_ insults, I prefer not to ask for an apology. We're not kids after all.

[NFG]

Sorry recap, maybe I'm intensely lazy but I'd prefer if you think something I said was incorrect that you tell me what it was, rather than linking to a long-winded page in which I might find the answer.

The emulated screenshot of a capcom game is the actual resolution. The perceived image ratio on a CRT affects how the pixels are seen, but not how they actually exist as digital data. For best viewing of pixels at a 1:1 screen-pixel ratio a fixed-resolution screen. My LCD gives a better pixel-perfect view than a CRT ever could, but I still prefer CRTs for playing because the vibrancy and feel is superior.

But then, I consider game playing and game analysis/review to be two distinct activities.

And recap: silly, ridiculous and crap refer to the weird thigns you say, not you as a person. They're not 'direct insults'.

[JoshF]

Do you mean like in these days?

Well that's a problem, "clarity" also comes with inreased resolution today. Is there such a thing as 320 x 240 lcd or plasma display that isn't the size of a GBA screen?

I'm saying if there was some technology that was developed back then that allowed clearer picture with low resolution display and aspect ratio intact, and it was more affordable than CRT, do you really think they wouldn't have flocked to it in a heartbeat? Why wouldn't pixel artists want you to see there work better? But this is alternate history so it's hard to argue about.

Speaking of which I don't see why Cave won't use high-definition, since they use Donkey Kong Country sprites anyway (I went there.)

[NFG]

Speaking of which I don't see why Cave won't use high-definition, since they use Donkey Kong Country sprites anyway (I went there.)

Man, screw cave's pre-rendered crap. It's sooo ugly! =(

[icycalm]

Let me try to explain why that comparison isn't valid:

In the AH I didn't use adjectives like "silly", "ridiculous" and "crap" to qualify your arguments or even yourself. I wasn't using pointless condescension, either. Check both threads, and if you find a real analogy, I'll edit my posts. And nope, when they're _direct_ insults, I prefer not to ask for an apology. We're not kids after all.

Recap, whether you ask for an apology or not is I guess up to you, but you cannot then use someone else's insult as an excuse to insult them back. Everyone here is my guest, and if you insult one of them you are also insulting me. And telling people that their honest posts are HORSESHIT is an insult.

And I repeat: I could have told you that your opinions on AH's theme were horsehit, because that's what I think they are, or I could have even told you that I don't think you know what the word 'theme' means, because I am not too sure you know, but I refrained out of politeness.

Bottom line is, I don't care if NFG's posts are FULL OF HORSESHIT. You cannot talk to him that way in my forum because he is my friend. If you are talking to him like that as a reaction, because you think that he insulted you first, then I am telling you that that is not an excuse. If you feel insulted either demand an apology, or say nothing. There's nothing childish about that -- that's how a man is supposed to act.

[NFG]

Here's how it worked: capcom made games with wide horizontal aspects which, when compressed into a 4:3 screen, gave a very high horizontal resolution. So high in fact that many screens, especially smaller ones, couldn't display all the pixels, so in effect you were missing part of the art. On a wide screen you'd get the full picture, and yes, it'd be stretched out in comparison,

are not exposing an "opinion". You're describing an invented, assumed situation as a fact which it's utterly FALSE (notice I'm not using HORSESHIT here, Icy). Yet, you still believe it's correct, no matter if I link a deep article about all the technicalities involved. Your reply: "generally explains things I already know". And there you have it -- you know nothing. : (

I was just doing some research on the issue of pixels and scanlines and stuff. If you were to put a Capcom fighter, with its horizontal resolution of 384 horizontal pixels, on a small monitor (for example, one of these JVC units), you'd lose about 60 horizontal pixels as the monitor can only display about 320 horizontal pixels. Larger CRT monitors usually mean more phosphor dots/stripes, and more horizontal pixels, but since the phosphor elements also become larger you may still not get a full 384 pixels.

This basically means that Capcom was making games knowing full well that the image produced would (technically) look different depending on the size and quality and dot pitch of the monitor in use. Never mind this, most arcades have badly out of tune monitors lurking in the back corners, covered in dirt or with failing electronics, and the things may be very ugly indeed.

Now you take into account the different features of a monitor (wide or 4:3, curved or flat, CRT or projection) which you might find in an arcade, and there's basically no way Capcom could have known how you'd look at their pixels. In the modern era pixels are almost certainly produced on an LCD screen, and blown up double or triple or even larger during development.

While I understand full well the appeal of CRTs and scanlines and doing things the hard way to achieve a vision of perfection, to even say, let alone insist that one way is superior to the other, is silly.

Each method has its advantages. While our friend Recap may think that his way is meeting some personally preferred ephemeral standard, it's not meeting mine, and I'm frankly disgusted at the level of insistence that one way is - without qualification - better than another.

[icycalm]

(wide or 4:3, curved or flat, CRT or projection)

I don't get what you are saying here. I've never seen wide/flat/projection screens in an arcade. They are all 4:3 curved CRTs. With the exception of the Lindbergh/Viewlix cabs of course which are wide TFTs, but no one makes 2D games for those.

And who gives a crap about those tiny JVC monitors you mentioned? Capcom's fighters were made for 29" CRTs. Nobody uses 10" RGB monitors in the arcades.

There is indeed a superior way to display these games, and that's the one that all the Japanese arcade operators use. And even if you manage to find me an operator out in the sticks somewhere who uses 10" CRT monitors in his arcade, the only thing you'd be proving is that his arcade sucks.

But I'll go beyond this. Even if you show me one or two brands of 29" CRT monitors that are not able to display all the pixels in a Capcom fighter, that's still not proving anything. Just don't buy those brands.

[NFG]

I don't get what you are saying here. I've never seen wide/flat/projection screens in an arcade.

Most of Sega, Namco and Konami's lightgun games use projection screens. Most of Konami's BeMani games use widescreens.

I used those JVC screens as an example 'cause they were the only ones I could find lines-of-resolution specs for. The truth remains tho: Not all monitors are equal, and I would be surprised if many could display all the horizontal pixels Capcom put out.

And I'm not saying these monitors are good quality or good for gaming, I'm saying that telling people how Capcom's artists never intended for their graphics to be displayed on a pixel-doubled fixed-res monitor is a bullshit argument. They had zero control over what people did with their games.

Obviously a nice NetCity cab with a 29" CRT would be ideal, but most arcades in the days of GnG were using 19" shit-o-trons exclusively, and I'd have to say playing them emulated on my LCD is a fuck-ton better than those old crappy monitors ever were.

And for the sake of screenshots or pixel review? I prefer my methods.

[icycalm]

Most of Sega, Namco and Konami's lightgun games use projection screens. Most of Konami's BeMani games use widescreens.

And so what? Capcom's 2D games were clearly not designed to be displayed on those, any more than they were designed to be displayed on the Lindbergh's TFT screen.

The truth remains tho: Not all monitors are equal, and I would be surprised if many could display all the horizontal pixels Capcom put out.

Of course not all monitors are equal. That's why for every game/system you have to seek out the display that's more suitable for it.

I'm saying that telling people how Capcom's artists never intended for their graphics to be displayed on a pixel-doubled fixed-res monitor is a bullshit argument.

Why? It is quite clear that they intended their games to be displayed on CRT RGB monitors which could produce the full resolution.

They had zero control over what people did with their games.

Naturally. But how does that fact help us find the ideal display solution(s) for their games?

Obviously a nice NetCity cab with a 29" CRT would be ideal

There you go, here's the ideal solution. Perhaps in the future there will be a better one, but for now this is the best we have.

but most arcades in the days of GnG were using 19" shit-o-trons exclusively

Why do you say they were shit? They were the best screens they had, so they used them. And if memory serves right, they could display all the pixels in their native resolution, so that's how Capcom's designers wanted you to see their games. To say that they would have preferred that you go out of your way to look for tiny 10" monitors or oddball CRTs that were not capable of showing all the pixels doesn't make sense.

and I'd have to say playing them emulated on my LCD is a fuck-ton better than those old crappy monitors ever were.

I don't remember those monitors being so bad as you make them out to be. If they were RGB CRTs that could display all the pixels, what was so bad about them? In any case, your argument here is irrelevant. Those monitors hardly even exist anymore. The choice these days is between an awesome, dirt-cheap RGB monitor and a crappy LCD. Take your pick.

[NFG]

No, you've drifted from the core argument: presenting game screenshots and sprites for review purposes on an LCD for the average viewer. Recap emulates the old CRT appearance, and I make 'em look better (IMO) on the display being used.

I've already said that for gaming I prefer a CRT, we're all agreed on that.

And I can't count the number of 50" SNK/Capcom fighting games I've seen in arcades, even back when the Neo was king of the hill. Capcom knew damned well their games would appear on all kinds of displays.

[icycalm]

No, you've drifted from the core argument: presenting game screenshots and sprites for review purposes on an LCD for the average viewer.

NFG, if you think I give a rat's ass about the "average viewer" you are not realizing the purpose of this website. Or Recap's. This is a website about criticism -- as such, the search for perfection is its sole objective. Never mind that perfection can never be attained -- it is nevertheless our job to pursue it.

What we are trying to do, at the end of the day, is help "average viewers" become "above-average viewers". Pandering to their ignorance is not the way to achieve that.

Recap emulates the old CRT appearance, and I make 'em look better (IMO) on the display being used.

Same thing goes for this comment. If they are using LCDs to play games which were designed to be played on CRTs, and which as you've agreed look better on CRTs, then we have to make that clear to them. Using screenshots like the ones on Recap's site helps drive the point home. Because the player looks at our screenshots, then they look at the mess on MAME running on their 30" Apple Cinema Displays, and they say "Wait a moment -- this shit looks nothing like those screens on that website! What the hell is going on here?"

It is at that point that we explain to them what's going on (assuming we first manage to figure it out ourselves, lol) and that's how we achieve our goal, which is to turn them into discerning, well-informed, demanding players.

And I can't count the number of 50" SNK/Capcom fighting games I've seen in arcades, even back when the Neo was king of the hill. Capcom knew damned well their games would appear on all kinds of displays.

And so what? People do all sorts of stupid things -- just because someone takes their Espgaluda PCB and hooks it up to the Virtual Boy doesn't mean that Cave made the game to look its best on the Virtual Boy. They made it to look its best on RGB arcade monitors, and that's where they should ideally be played, and that's what we have to explain to our readers, and that's why we need screenshots that get as close to that ideal as possible.


And please do not mistake my comments to mean that I believe people who play Espgaluda on the Virtual Boy should be put to death. Everyone is free to do whatever they please, but the job of the reviewer is to point out the best solution in every case. If you write an article about how to hook up Espgaluda to the Virtual Boy, I would of course be happy to post it in the (forthcoming) hardware section of this website -- but that is not to say that I'd go back to my review of Espgaluda and substitute my CRT screenshots for your lame Virtual Boy ones.

And, in case this is not 100% clear, I am using Virtual Boy as an extreme example to better illustrate the point I want to make. You can substitute any number of inferior display devices (50" projection screens, LCDs, 10" JVC RGB monitors, etc. etc.) in the place of Virtual Boy.


Moreover, the above doesn't just apply to 2D arcade games. I would say the exact same things to someone who played Gears of War on a B&W SDTV, for example, and who made a website using screenshots for that game taken from this setup.

[Recap]

And recap: silly, ridiculous and crap refer to the weird thigns you say, not you as a person. They're not direct insults.

And telling people that their honest posts are HORSESHIT is an insult

So which one should I believe? The one from the guy I'm supposedly insulting or the one from the forum's admin? I'm asking because we'd have two different conclusions here:

- If NFG's right, then he can never take what I said as an "insult", since, much like he says he did before, that was refering to the nonsensical things he wrote and still keeps writing, so you were wrong calling me an asshole (and then... I should be asking for an apology? lol).

- But if it's you the one speaking the truth, then, following the very same argument and attending his own statement, NFG was clearly "insulting" me. Sadly, it puts yourself in a worse scenario to my eyes, since you never called NFG an asshole for doing exactly what you say I did (but uglier, since he actually never had a possible "excuse" --as you put it--), and indeed you're vividly coming in his defense. Should I be thinking that you place your guests in different cathegories then? ...

Notice that whichever it is the correct option of those two, it doesn't say much in favor of yourself as a forum admin and I'd normally have left this place already much like I've done on many other forums -- without explaining what, to my common sense, is a quite obvious scenario. It happens I appreciate you and like to think of yourself as a more intelligent person than the usual interweb forum admin, thoe, so I prefer to go and post this and see. Please, watch your steps this time.


---

Well that's a problem, "clarity" also comes with inreased resolution today

That depends on your definition for "clarity" I guess.

Speaking of which I don't see why Cave won't use high-definition, since they use Donkey Kong Country sprites anyway (I went there.)

It doesn't really matter (much) if their graphics are made with a computer, if you ask me. They still carefully tune them by hand, and HD would demand much more details which aren't currently being made. But whatever. It's as simple as that they're beyond that technocratic shit which postulates "the bigger the rez, the better". They see and defend that "[properly displayed] low-res" and "hi-res" are just different things, each with their own points. That hi-res shouldn't be replacing low-res much like polygons shouldn't be replacing sprites. How much will they manage to stay true to their beliefs? Unless they take the dedicated cab route, not much I'd say. You know, 15-kHz arcade monitors haven't changed their technical specs for 20 years now and they always were a quite of a universal standard, but TFT is invading this territory too now, so.

[icycalm]

Please, watch your steps this time.

I always watch my step, so there's no reason for me to take extra care this particular time.

Also, by the way, I happen to be the best forum admin this planet has ever seen. If you don't realize this yet, you will perhaps realize it if and when this forum has several hundred active posters. Keeping such a large group of people to my uncompromising standards of conduct is a job no one else I've met on the internet can handle.

Having said that, the point here to realize is that each guest's job is to look after their own conduct. When you told NFG that his post was horseshit, in all-caps no less, you were shitting in my forum (something, which, by the way, I would never even dream of doing in your forum). If you do not understand this, just imagine a forum where the conversation goes like this:

Poster #1: Your post is full of HORSESHIT.

Poster #2: No, YOUR post is full of HORSESHIT.

Poster #3: No, BOTH your posts are full of HORSESHIT.

et cetera et cetera.

Obviously, this is not the sort of comments I want people to be posting in this forum.

This is why I am saying that, irrespective of what may have taken place between you and NFG, when you post something like that here you are offending ME, PERSONALLY.

So yes, I love you very much, but that doesn't mean I am happy with you shitting in my forum.

Now if you think that NFG at some point did the exact same thing, then for the love of God say so the moment you see him to do it. Replying in kind is unacceptable under any circumstances.

Personally, I think that some of the stuff NFG says, and some of the stuff you say, are horseshit. But you will never see me going around shouting "horseshit this" and "horseshit that". Just check my two previous posts in this thread. I did my best to explain to NFG why I think his statements are wrong, without insulting him, and without being condescending. At the end of the day I respect him, and I respect you, and I want to have civilized conversations with both of you. If you don't respect NFG, or if you don't respect me, and if you are not prepared to show that you respect us by making an effort to explain yourself as clearly as it is in your power to do so with each and every single one of your posts, then there is absolutely no reason for you to try and discuss anything with us.

And again, I repeat, that the point of our discussions is most certainly NOT to change each others' viewpoints. As far as I am concerned, you can go to your grave believing that games with sexually attractive girls have lame themes, and NFG that having muddy screenshots of 2D games in reviews is A-OK.

The point here is for each of us to explain our viewpoints to the others as clearly as possible. Whether the others change/adjust their own views afterwards is their own business.

[NFG]

NFG, if you think I give a rat's ass about the "average viewer"

I don't mean the average man in the street, I mean the average viewer who comes to this site. They're already a cut above, right? So in this context the average viewer is still pretty elite.

They made it to look its best on RGB arcade monitors, and that's where they should ideally be played, and that's what we have to explain to our readers, and that's why we need screenshots that get as close to that ideal as possible.

If you want to elevate the average man and tell him about the glories of scanlines, more power to you. It's a noble goal, but - and here's my point - they're not viewing this site on a CRT. It is not possible to capture the flickery high-contrast awesomeness of a CRT by faking it on an LCD. Personally I think it's madness to try.

I think if you want to impress upon people the benefits of 'doing it right' it should be kept to an article doing exactly that*. Compromising every image in every review, trying to magically make every LCD screen in the world look as awesome as a CRT, is just not an achievable or rational goal.

I recognize that some people might prefer the Recap approach, and that's great, but I think the reasons recap has given for his screenshot preference are ridiculous: It's perfectly acceptable to have an opinion, but if you're going to justify or rationalize that opinion with really silly logic... Well, then I'm going to tell you how silly it is.

I mean, seriously, Recap's trying to say he's doing things the way Capcom intended? Did he ask them? (Did he?? I suppose I should have checked...) Recap's points seem to have a religious fervour to them. His goals are laudable, but the rationale - "This is what jesus... er, what Capcom intended" - strikes me as pretentious.

And Recap's right, I was probably the one who started dismissively insulting the other party's ideas. I called them silly and worse, but really, dear Recap, they are. =)

* I actually tried writing an article about scanlines and LCDs and all that stuff. I had to put it aside while I worked out the problem: I could not show, visually, how awesome a CRT was because the viewer was using an LCD. It's like trying to show off your fancy new colour TV when the viewer's only got a black and white one - you can tell him how great it is, but you can't SHOW him.

[JoshF]

That depends on your definition for "clarity" I guess.

Okay, I made a sprite. Now make it clearer by adding lines and colors, perhaps a flickering effect for the most accurate "clarity". If you want to add an effect for a warped magnetic field, that's up to you.

It doesn't really matter (much) if their graphics are made with a computer, if you ask me. They still carefully tune them by hand, and HD would demand much more details which aren't currently being made.

I'd like to see what their hand-drawn process is. I doubt fine-tuning a Donkey Kong Country sprite takes even 1/10 the time to make a fine-tuned hand drawn sprite, so hi-def would play as big a factor in resources.

[icycalm]

And Recap's right, I was probably the one who started dismissively insulting the other party's ideas. I called them silly and worse, but really, dear Recap, they are. =)

NFG, this approach is a dead-end. The conversation cannot possibly go anywhere from there. If I am trying to explain something to you, and your reply is that my explanation is silly, what more can I say to you? "Fuck you" is indeed the most appropriate answer.

So INSTEAD of doing that, if you see me saying something that you THINK is silly, the only way to respond is this:

"I see what you are saying but I believe you are wrong for this, this and that reason."

If, however, you do NOT "see what I am saying", then the ONLY appropriate response is to ask for clarification. At that point, it would be rude of me to reply "Well, if you didn't get it the first time that means you are stupid". The correct response would be to either try to explain to you again what I am saying, without insulting you either directly or indirectly, and without assuming a condescending tone, or to simply say "I am sorry but I am unable to provide a better/different explanation to the thing I have already explained." At which point the conversation ends and we all go home friends.

This is the ONLY way to conduct a conversation. Everything else is HORSESHITTING between COMPLETE AND UTTER RETARDS.

I am not even going to respond to the rest of your post because I don't care anymore. If you guys have managed to get to the age that you are at without having learned how to conduct a conversation, then you will either learn it right here, right now, or I am going to shut this forum down and do this fucking website by myself.