Main > Reviews
Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
genesim:
NO.
I was saying that recreating the original CODE is the ground floor.
NON 1:1 arcade monitors create just as much harm in some cases and in others actually more.
You should never go for the filtering effect until the original code is represented accurately.
You should never go for what YOU think the author intended, you should always go for what was actually there in the code. Accuracy first. Interpretation later.
Malenko:
--- Quote from: genesim on July 13, 2007, 03:20:12 am ---NO.
I was saying that recreating the original CODE is the ground floor.
NON 1:1 arcade monitors create just as much harm in some cases and in others actually more.
You should never go for the filtering effect until the original code is represented accurately.
You should never go for what YOU think the author intended, you should always go for what was actually there in the code. Accuracy first. Interpretation later.
--- End quote ---
well in my opinion, the user should make the game how he wants it to look; its not about accuracy, its about enjoyment.
Much like RandyT I'm done with this thread, your replies remind of an old adage......
"Never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience."
krutknut:
What does a pixel look like when there is no monitor to render it?
This is one of the ageless questions that he tibetan monks have meditated upon for hundreds of years.
genesim:
And my thing is don't put a player down because he wants it as accurate as possible with the added effect of playing new games without glare and with smooth response(4 MS!!!!).
If you look at the very beginning of the thread it wasn't me that said "you have a crappy monitor so what is the point".
Though to get it straight, it isn't an age old question. Pixels are square, and the code is quite clear.
Monitors were capable at the time of rendering anything that programmers created. The limitation as I said before were in the chips, not the display.
Malenko, you call me an idiot...why? Because I am right and you hate it? Disprove what I say instead of personal attacks. That was the problem with Randy T. I pointed out how he was dead wrong on monitors capabilites so he skated and gave me no credit. I pointed out he was dead wrong on the interpretation of the code because you must start with accuracy first.
I am not "making" anyone do anything. You guys can't stand it because I don't stoop to the level of sacrificing accuracy to create a so called artisitic vision that no one can possibly know without being exactly into the programmers head.
Meanwhile one can have the filters on a bettered rendered picture to begin with!! You can have it both ways.
The only thing that I did was post pictures of what the card was capable of, and furthermore defended an LCD monitor as a fine display.
But instead people like you call me names when I forced NOTHING on you guys. You don't like it fine. You don't care about accuracy fine. Just don't put me down for it.
I like square pixels because that is exactly what was in the original code. PERIOD.
Now be done, because it is clear you like the others are incapable of being civilized.
I recently had a friend over and showed him the difference and while he wasn't blown away he did see it...especially on older games. I do laugh because most people don't care that much about the difference.
I admit, I am not like most people. Big deal. I didn't put down anyone else for wanting their vision. Why are so many putting me down for wanting mine? Especially when using logic you gotta know that I am making sense. Truth is truth. You cannot twist it. The code is the "DNA" of Arcades. To argue anthing else is absurd.
Malenko:
--- Quote from: genesim on July 14, 2007, 12:33:50 am --- The code is the "DNA" of Arcades.
--- End quote ---
First off, you argue about CRT vs LCD then bring in the irrelevant point of code being the "DNA" of arcades.
arcade do not have Deoxyribonucleic Acid, so I don't get it. Also, some say that innovations in games and graphics; the social value, and the challenge is what made arcades great, and while you can say no one would have played any games without code, I can say no code would have been written if no one was playing the games.
Secondly, at no point did I call you an idiot. I am saying your "argument" is idiotic. You don't seem to realize that unless you were the programmer ,you haven't the foggiest idea of what they wanted. The end result of their artistic vision was achieved with them full well knowing the limits of any and all technology at the time. You SCREAM code over and over and over without realizing the the CODE is being emulated perfectly on 90% of the games. you also claim monitors had no limits in what they can show..... I'm pretty sure there weren't any monitors in 1977 that could display 2048*1536 in 32 bit color, is that your alleged chip limit or perhaps the technological limit of the cathode tubes at the time
You claim to not be putting anyone down, but saying that your point is the only valid one is quite insulting to all. Ive been on this forum a very long time and more often then not I was reading and not preaching my opinion as the word of the lord. Message boards are for the spreading and mixing of everyones ideas and ideals. I've read many replies of RandyT's over numerous threads and Ive come to respect his opinion a great deal; you how ever are far too pig headed and unwaivering in your opinion to validate further posting in this or any other thread concerning you and your alleged "opinion"
As for you being "right" (and subsequently me "hating it") scroll up a little and you'll see my answer to that, opinion is opinion and is never right nor wrong; so you are right in having that opinion you are wrong in thinking that opinion is fact when its not. Your opinion is yours, and while others may share it, its practically guaranteed others WONT.
The problem is no one even know what your point is. If you are saying LCD is a better display then a CRT tube; thats fine, and thats your opinion. But then whats the point of saying the programmer were limited to CRTs then say that CRTs can display anything, understand now why no one understands you?
More often then not I prefer to have my games arcade accurate but certain games like Mortal Kombat look better to me in MAME on my LCD then on my arcade machine running the PCBs, does that mean everyone should like that? NO! because its what I prefer not what everyone else SHOULD prefer. I have no problem with for example, RandyT thinking Mortal Kombat should look arcade perfect if possible, its what he wants so he should go for it!
I feel like the level of redundancy of my text is staggering but I know you'll completely miss the point. And also, I only used RandyT's name as a reference point I have no idea what he thinks Mortal Kombat should look like, but I respect it :)
just for the heck of it, heres UMK3 running on
1) Arcade 25" monitor
2) MAME cab, 27" VGA monitor 640x480 resolution
3) my PC, running MAME, 512x384 on my DCL LCD 19" monitor
I admit UMK3 looks better to me on my LCD, but even though it looks "better" its not arcade accurate. I think PacMan looks weird running on my LCD, too sharp too crisp, but looks "perfect" to me on my MAME cab
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version