Main > Reviews
Ultimarc Arcade VGA2 comparisons using a LCD for PC
RandyT:
As I wrote before, maybe there were very specialized displays with greater resolution (I don't really know for sure as I'm going from what you stated, even though you've provided no references to back it up). I'm sure there were more powerful processors and lots of (very low density) memory, but those things were far too expensive to be put into a machine that had to pay for itself 25 miserable cents at a time. So regardless of what was technically achievable, they were not always practical, making the consideration of what you think "could have been" quite moot. There were all kinds of limitations that had nothing to do with technology, rather sound business principles and with what was cost effective. However, the programmers / artists of the day still had to do the best they could with what they had to work with and that is exactly what they did, whether you wish to believe it or not.
Furthermore, that's precisely why your Atari 2600 (assuming you actually ever owned one) didn't have spectacular graphics as well. Cheap processor, little memory and an RF connection to a fuzzy TV set. But don't think for one moment that the programmers and artists didn't work night and day to try to make the best looking and best playing game they could given all of those limitations. Every nuance of that machine was exploited, including bugs and undocumented features to do things that the original hardware designers would have said were impossible. If you think for a moment that they didn't try to arrange the pixels in such a way to take advantage of a fuzzy TV display, then I don't know what else to say. And if you want to see something really ugly, take a look at a 2600 game, in full-screen, on an LCD display. I'd rather have a TV (or an effect that approximated one ) to soften the display of those big blocks, just as the game designers expected the TV to do when the code was written.
From what you have written, it is my opinion that you've never written a single line of machine code in your entire life and that you probably weren't even alive in the 80's, let alone ever designed graphics for older machines and displays. You also don't seem to have even the most basic grasp on the things that are done in business to make a marketable product. What is it exactly about who you are, your occupation, your past experiences, etc. that makes you feel so qualified to interpret for others what I write, or makes you expect others to take your words as definitive? Please don't answer with more of that "Rainman-style special in-bred skillz" stuff, just something (anything) substantive. The fact that you have yet to offer this type of information, you constantly dodge direct questions that might lead to meaningful technical discussion and that the post that began this thread was the first you made, makes it appear very much like you are here primarily as either a troll or a shill.
As with a good deal of other community members who participate in these forums, everything I write is based on experience, having "been there, done that and still doing it." If what you have written is based on that premise as well, I am genuinely interested in knowing how you have managed to deviate so profoundly from the views others have here as this topic is concerned.
Once again, please stop trying to interpret for others what I write. It doesn't need interpreting and you have yet to do it correctly.
RandyT
genesim:
Now this is getting really funny.
So now you are saying that the big "blocks" were done to bypass the interlaced effect.
NO Einstein. 4kb is 4kb and there wasn't a television around that could not handle anything and everything that an Atari 2600 put out.
Incidently, yes I did own the machine as I stated before, as well as Pong, a Colecovision, a Vic 20, a Commodore 64(of which I copied more then a few "arcade close" games), Apple, Nintendo, Sega Genesis, Game Gear, Game Boy, N64, Playstation, Dreamcast, and finally PS2.
Not to mention the standup arcade I built to relive my memories of the thousands of dollars in quarters I spent.
Now do I need to further dig out my family pictures to show you the first Christmas that I got an Atari as a tyke? DIMWIT.
I am very aware of the RF outputs and the millions of switch boxes that I went through the years. I am also very aware that the games looked very boxy then, and the "fuzzy" TV was absolutely ZERO hinderance on the graphics. Do you understand that an RF unit at WORST is able to put out well over 200 lines of resolution.
But hey, you bring up a great point...not only was the processor limited, but so was the frickin signal that gets there. Again, so this translates as bad for a monitor that can draw that many more pixels representing just one??
I brought up Calculus because it is a fundamental theorem for integrals. Pick an integral and fill it up with rectangles. You do understand that the more rectangles used, the closer you are going to get to the original shape right? For example...like in a sine curve...minimum or maximum.
You claim to have so much expertise, yet you have no concept of anything that I have written. Do I understand that programmers took SOME advantage of their limitations. Absolutely. Do I believe that they would purposely make anything more blocky...HELL NO.
You see the difference? Don't think for a moment that anything was kept from being a circle to keep some kind of artistic standpoint...don't be absurd.
Even with scanlines...bad signal...color bleeding...etc. A CIRCLE is going to look better then a BLOCK. Get this through Randy, and listen good. IF THEY COULD HAVE THEY WOULD HAVE!
Now looking at your last post, I do believe I have pushed a button, even to the point of you calling me every name in the book without knowing a single thing about me. You claim you know so much about how an artist/programmer thinks, yet you are making the same assumptions about me as a person, even down to my very life experience at video games and having more then enough experience to be able to make the most simplistic observations.
The difference between you and me is that I have used what you have written, and you have taken a holier then thou approach and even personally attacked everything that is me!
Only a fool would keep repeating that you have to be this kind of person or that kind of person...as if it holds more weight.
Look at what is written, and not what you "feel". As I said before, the greatest minds in the world had little concept of the subject matter that they excelled in....yet they were able to make conclusions that even the most experienced scientists..inventors...mechanics etc...could not see!
Though I must stress...I am hardly a rookie. Its just irrelevant to this conversation. As it should be on your end. Have some class.
Incidently, what questions have I dodged? What "PROOF" have you brought to the table. You don't even know that a pixel is SQUARE!
How is anything I have said so "profoundly different" then everyone else? I even fail to see how you come to the conclusion that I have somehow deviated from popular view. Quite the contrary...most of what I have said can be easily looked up. Matter of fact, you know it too.
So I challenge you...please tell me. WHERE AM I WRONG. I have pointed out your mistakes and you dodge...dodge...dodge. It is all there plain as day.
Hell I didn't even intrepret that much...I just quoted you and stated the obvious.
Randy thinks that tv's/monitors are the bottle neck and programmers were hindered by them. Randy is wrong.
RandyT:
--- Quote from: genesim on July 17, 2007, 03:10:33 am ---Randy thinks that tv's/monitors are the bottle neck and programmers were hindered by them. Randy is wrong.
--- End quote ---
It's official.
:troll:
genesim:
:laugh2:
When you have nothing to add, you resort to more name calling. I knew people like you once. Go back to the playground.
Singapura:
Guys, you've made my day. I haven't read a spirited discussion like this since the days of vinyl vs CD (I'm a regular at audio fora). I know this is my first post on this forum but I'm not a newcomer to the arcade scene. Can I add a little bit to the discussion? IMHO it's not only the pixel size or native resolution that gives dedicated CRT monitors the edge over LCD screens. The curve of the screen as well gives a whole other look and feel to the game. Even the way outside light reflects on the screen adds to the arcade "feel" Is there a software way to recreate this for LCD monitors? If computers can recreate Optimus Prime, they should be able to do the same for "imperfections" that give Mame games that "authentic" touch.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version