Jump to content
IGNORED

All 329 & 27 Unreleased SNES Games Compared Side By Side With The Genesis


Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
On 7/6/2022 at 2:49 AM, retrocomparisons said:

Here's every commercially released SNES/Super Famicom game that was also ported to the Genesis/Mega Drive.

Just as an fyi, everything is presented as 4:3 to more accurately represent how these would have been played during the days of the console wars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_ULnOZK3nk&t=6s

Yeah, but it's not the days of the consoles wars from thirty plus years ago, and no one has to play SNES games all stretched to weird proportions if they don't want to now, so, as comparisons go, this is slightly biased towards a ratio that plays more to the Genesis favour than the SNES. When SNES games are viewed at the display aspect ratio that actually makes the art look proportionally correct and accurate to how the original artist drew it, they almost universally look quite a bit nicer (correct proportions, cleaner colours, sharper pixels). In the vast majority of cases that would be the 8:7 display aspect ratio rather than the 4:3 display aspect ratio--and I've tested this on a bunch of games directly, including around forty of the Top 100 SNES games, so I know this to be true--so it's unfortunate that all we get to see here is SNES games all distorted and stretched to 4:3. But each to their own, I guess.

Edited by Kirk_Johnston
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I just realized even more so that your comparison has an unfair bias towards Genesis, for actually a few reasons (maybe unintentionally, but it's there):

 

You say all the SNES games are 4:3 (i.e. stretched and distorted so everything is the wrong proportions in the majority of games) so it reflects how these games would have been played (viewed) back in the day . . . but you're more than happy to show both system's games in a picture/pixel quality that was basically impossible back in the day (certainly not possible with simple composite leads), even more so for the majority of Genesis owners (as SNES actually had standard S-Video and SCART output capability, and even came with those cables in the box in some countries, but not the model 1 Genesis), so the Genesis games not only look more correctly proportioned in this comparison setup, but also technically sharper too, since the pixels are pin sharp on modern displays, but the pixels on SNES are always slightly more blurred because they are always being stretched and distorted.

 

Because of the almost universally terrible cables and connection setups that most people had back in the day, the fact SNES games were stretched to 4:3 would have not even registered with most gamers, even when arguing about the console wars. But the stretch is far more obvious on SNES now, since everything is so much clearer and cleaner and any distortion in the art much more apparent, so the SNES isn't really being allowed to take equal advantage of this modern output here as the Genesis is.

 

So, if you are happy to show these games with lovely clean pixels as only possible on modern displays, you should be showing them at the best possible output for each console too, which would be 8:7 display aspect ratio for the majority of SNES games (1:1 PAR or Pefect Pixel as Nintendo calls it), so the visuals are not stretched or distorted and the pixels equally as sharp as they can be, as you have afforded the Genesis.

 

Also, the majority of Genesis owners were definitely playing their games on mono on their TVs as standard as that was all the model 1 was capable of (without rather convoluted solutions), whereas SNES had stereo output built-in as standard on all units (easily supported by widely and officially available cables at the time), and some games even supported Dolby surround sound too. Do you make that clear in your videos? Or do you basically short-change the SNES here too by outputting both system's games in mono in these comparisons (dedicating one speaker to each system), while simultaneously hiding one of the relative downsides of the Genesis in the sound department next to the SNES at the time?

 

And, it's interesting that we never get to see how these games actually physically control on their respective consoles in any of these comparisons either, an area where the SNES' superior controller gives it a meaningful advantage in many cases.

 

The Genesis is basically shown in its best light here (playing to many of its strengths and hiding any downsides), and the SNES not in its best light (playing to little of its strengths and emphasising all its downsides).

 

It's not a legit fair and equal comparison (again, not saying intentionally, but it's there), by neither the original standards and perceptions nor modern standards and perceptions.

 

PS. The video is still an amazing feat and appreciated for what it is, so major kudos on that front, but my issues with it remain irrespective of that.

Edited by Kirk_Johnston
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for that big post.  I saw this for bullshit a month ago and fought writing and then hitting submit reply on it as I wanted to to just vanish scrolled off, but here we are again.  Some people either from the era or sucked into the drama of decades past can't extract their head from their ass or their bias and you get covert(not so covert) dumpster fires like that click bait troll video on youtube.  The video maybe amazing for the generalized scope, but the layers of dishonesty take that amazingness and torches it.

 

The only one I've ever seen honest without some stream of bs is the console comparison videos that show game by game side by side, whatever the platforms and you can see then hear the differences.  That's when you get into reality, not manufactured clickbait.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire topic is bogus. You get it all, a "500 GAMES IN 20 SECONDS!!!!!" video being shilled by a guy here solely to shill his videos, barely coherent screeds, and even a meme GIF reaction.

 

To the OP: You put a lot of work into that video, and I personally agree with your decision to use the same AR for both systems... but it's just a shame you're here only to shill and not to actually interact with the other members.

Edited by newtmonkey
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this guy here does a pretty good and fair job with these "vs" videos, showing each system's games in both 4:3 display aspect ratio and also output at the native resolution for each console too (means you always get to see some footage at the display aspect ratio that is best for each individual game--and on SNES, the best display aspect ratio varies from game to game), as well as side-by-side and full screen footage for each console too (and I presume and hope in full screen you get to hear the games in full stereo as well--never checked as I don't use headphones): 

Edited by Kirk_Johnston
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Decided to see what the hubbub about this video was, yeah, there's a ton of bias in there, especially going by the comments section there. Glad this was pointed out so that I never have to watch this guys videos. He is pretty much similar to VCDeicide (a cancer to Youtube, she vowed to leave Youtube after she got demontized, promised multiple times, yet is still there making videos), who also skews her videos in favor of Sega, no matter the console she is comparing games between. Two peas of the same pod. I watch one Japanese guy who compares mostly fighting games, he is pretty good about his comparisons as well, and translating the comments in his section, his commenters tend to be friendly and fair, no hatred really towards any consoles games, though I am one of the few English speakers that hits his comments section (He interacts with me in English well enough, has done so over many videos). He is friendly, and doesn't try to make one game look worse than the other. He gives you stats about loading times between fights, or how long it takes 2 versions of 1 game to start up fully to the title screen.

 

 

Seems like I've seen this movement by people lately to try and change history, from making SNES and PS1 games look bad versus their Sega counterparts, to one guy outright telling me Sega outsold SNES overall, and me having to tell him he's full of crap (He's Australian, Sega sold well over there, but the race was the opposite here in the US, where the SNES won, and in Japan, where it got trounced). I get it, they put up with a lot of pro SNES people oggling over the system, well deserved too for what it could do, and it likely triggered a bunch of Sega fans to start outright lying about sales numbers and the like. I tell the Sega fanboys that they are pretty much the SNES fanboys, but on the other side of the line.

Edited by Bloodreign
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh...someone worse?  Never heard of VCDecide, and I refuse to watch that idiot if what you're saying is even semi-accurate with angry bias included.  That's just disgusting.  It's like EGM of the 1990s where they'd blatantly lie about Nintendo stuff in print with ported titles pointing out imaginary flaws but providing no images to back it up glowing how the Sega one, then later Sony one was better.  Later people would find that EGM were blackmailers and if you didn't through swag suck them off, they'd down rate games and demean projects so they could abuse their media authority to buy what those fanboy tools were in favor of (the companies, hardware or game makers) who would send them plenty of free stuff vs those who sent little or made them buy it.  She sounds like that level of gutter slime.

 

@Bloodreign Who is that Japanese guy, curious, since most aren't that honest it would be interesting to see more of that, instead of mostly what that dumb bunny does and those who do shades of that dishonesty that largely pollutes those places.  I get it with the denial train, it was annoying in the 90s, and that it has resurfaced in recent years with a mix of toxic veteran mouth breathers and then the teens/younger adults now lapping it up with no research as fact is dangerously stupid.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tanooki said:

Ugh...someone worse?  Never heard of VCDecide, and I refuse to watch that idiot if what you're saying is even semi-accurate with angry bias included.  That's just disgusting.  It's like EGM of the 1990s where they'd blatantly lie about Nintendo stuff in print with ported titles pointing out imaginary flaws but providing no images to back it up glowing how the Sega one, then later Sony one was better.  Later people would find that EGM were blackmailers and if you didn't through swag suck them off, they'd down rate games and demean projects so they could abuse their media authority to buy what those fanboy tools were in favor of (the companies, hardware or game makers) who would send them plenty of free stuff vs those who sent little or made them buy it.  She sounds like that level of gutter slime.

 

@Bloodreign Who is that Japanese guy, curious, since most aren't that honest it would be interesting to see more of that, instead of mostly what that dumb bunny does and those who do shades of that dishonesty that largely pollutes those places.  I get it with the denial train, it was annoying in the 90s, and that it has resurfaced in recent years with a mix of toxic veteran mouth breathers and then the teens/younger adults now lapping it up with no research as fact is dangerously stupid.

Yes, VCDecide is definitely worse. I'm not sure if the guy above is doing some of the stuff deliberately or just by accident, but VCDecide is definitely doing stuff with a particular slant and goal in mind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Tanooki said:

Ugh...someone worse?  Never heard of VCDecide, and I refuse to watch that idiot if what you're saying is even semi-accurate with angry bias included.  That's just disgusting.  It's like EGM of the 1990s where they'd blatantly lie about Nintendo stuff in print with ported titles pointing out imaginary flaws but providing no images to back it up glowing how the Sega one, then later Sony one was better.  Later people would find that EGM were blackmailers and if you didn't through swag suck them off, they'd down rate games and demean projects so they could abuse their media authority to buy what those fanboy tools were in favor of (the companies, hardware or game makers) who would send them plenty of free stuff vs those who sent little or made them buy it.  She sounds like that level of gutter slime.

 

@Bloodreign Who is that Japanese guy, curious, since most aren't that honest it would be interesting to see more of that, instead of mostly what that dumb bunny does and those who do shades of that dishonesty that largely pollutes those places.  I get it with the denial train, it was annoying in the 90s, and that it has resurfaced in recent years with a mix of toxic veteran mouth breathers and then the teens/younger adults now lapping it up with no research as fact is dangerously stupid.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClZ9p1rxsNAFtSTslqdMq1g

He does do his videos entirely in Japanese, but it seems he doesn't skew one version of anything he puts against one another in favor of any one particular version screen resolution wise. He does tend to use different recording equipment between consoles, and sometimes a version can look too dark, but again, that is down to using different capture software between consoles. I tend to use a translate comments plugin for Opera, so I can translate and read the comments on his page from other users, and there's no actual trolling, unlike VCDeicide (home to such Youtube filth who hate the SNES with a passion like Dean Satan, who also tends to sometimes hit Sega Lord X's videos, and felt the need to recently crap on the console when SLX did a video on some of his favorite SNES games from 1992). If you comment in English, he will reply to you every single time.

 

I also found a website awhile back, I believe it's called Sega Retro, where they compared the two consoles, and skewered the console spec numbers in favor of the Genesis in each and every category.

 

@Kirk_Johnston How many times has VCDeicide threatened to quit Youtube over having her videos demonitized..... only for her not to follow through with that promise, like she did it just for attention.

Edited by Bloodreign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bloodreign said:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClZ9p1rxsNAFtSTslqdMq1g

He does do his videos entirely in Japanese, but it seems he doesn't skew one version of anything he puts against one another in favor of any one particular version screen resolution wise. He does tend to use different recording equipment between consoles, and sometimes a version can look too dark, but again, that is down to using different capture software between consoles. I tend to use a translate comments plugin for Opera, so I can translate and read the comments on his page from other users, and there's no actual trolling, unlike VCDeicide (home to such Youtube filth who hate the SNES with a passion like Dean Satan, who also tends to sometimes hit Sega Lord X's videos, and felt the need to recently crap on the console when SLX did a video on some of his favorite SNES games from 1992). If you comment in English, he will reply to you every single time.

 

I also found a website awhile back, I believe it's called Sega Retro, where they compared the two consoles, and skewered the console spec numbers in favor of the Genesis in each and every category.

 

@Kirk_Johnston How many times has VCDeicide threatened to quit Youtube over having her videos demonitized..... only for her not to follow through with that promise, like she did it just for attention.

Yeah, and she also bans people who dare to question her or point out ways she could just balance things out a bit better (as she did to me), and then often creates videos or topics covering the very matter from only her singular perspective and now without the voice of the person who questioned her in the first place, so everything in the comments actually has a bit more of a one-sided slant there again too. I mentioned in quite a few of her videos that it would be much fairer if she at least showed SNES games in both 4:3 and 8:7 display aspect ratios at different points (as well as just turned the volume up on the SNES games a bit as she was constantly letting the Genesis audio drown out the SNES audio), and she basically banned me and then made a series of videos right after that "proving" her side of the debate for all the loyal followers to vote up and cheer on, without me being able to respond to any claims she made. It's absurd how manipulative she is and how she's using her position and her many followers to sway the narrative.

 

Also, yeah, some of those Sega-centric "comparison" sites/articles are absurd and utterly misleading (intentionally so imo). I literally had to go in and update some of the details on the segaretro article myself, just so the SNES specs were more accurate and a bunch of previously missing stuff was added in: 

 

https://segaretro.org/Sega_Mega_Drive/Hardware_comparison

 

It's a bit better now, but I expect there's still a fair bit of misleading information in there that just blindly biases the Genesis.

 

That's partly why I created this article on the SNES background modes (to at least have a bit more info out there on those at least): 

 

https://inceptionalnews.wordpress.com/2022/08/26/snes-background-modes/

Edited by Kirk_Johnston
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Bloodreign I'm familiar with and passively have used SegaRetros wiki-ish style page as it has good info on sega product, but I never dug deep enough to see comparisons there so it's good to know they're lying pricks playing the fanboy over honesty angle still decades later so I may have to stop bothering and get a better resource.  I have a translation app(google translate) I can use if I needed to read something in a comment for the trustworthy Japanese producer there you linked, and thanks for that I'll look shortly. My skills are shot, but if the comments don't dig into the kanji realm I could probably figure enough out still.  VCD just seems slimy and I like SLX as that guy isn't a scam he likes both, loves one, but won't lie about the other (snes) to make a point so I put him on a short list of more trustworthy cross platform makers. That SNES video and he has done others, NES too, are quite good.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's one type of game I cannot stand between both consoles, outside of the Turrican games, Amiga ports. I hold no nostalgia to that machine, and I once tried emulating it, but found out most of it's library, outside of the Arkanoid ports, and Bubble Bobble (Rainbow Islands on the thing is an incomplete game, it too is rubbish for the Amiga) are absolute rubbish. I always felt once I found out where some of these games originated, and trying them out on their original platform, that they should've stayed on their original platform, and in their place, more Japanese made titles instead should've been made for both consoles.

 

I just can't get myself to like the Amiga, especially after trying out games for some of the Japanese PC's of the time, like the Sharp X68000, the FM Towns Marty, and a little of the PC98.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bloodreign said:

There's one type of game I cannot stand between both consoles, outside of the Turrican games, Amiga ports. I hold no nostalgia to that machine, and I once tried emulating it, but found out most of it's library, outside of the Arkanoid ports, and Bubble Bobble (Rainbow Islands on the thing is an incomplete game, it too is rubbish for the Amiga) are absolute rubbish. I always felt once I found out where some of these games originated, and trying them out on their original platform, that they should've stayed on their original platform, and in their place, more Japanese made titles instead should've been made for both consoles.

 

I just can't get myself to like the Amiga, especially after trying out games for some of the Japanese PC's of the time, like the Sharp X68000, the FM Towns Marty, and a little of the PC98.

I have a similar feeling with so many of those Amiga/ST/C64-type games, where they have both an aesthetic and often gameplay style that I just can't get into. That's likely partly the controls, which often aren't translated across to the gamepads of consoles particularly well either, and the general gameplay always seems to be a bit slow and clunky too, especially with the platformers. I've never been a huge fan, although I can recognise some of the standout titles there. Those games did tend to port better to Genesis purely because of the higher horizontal resolution there, although I do feel many of the SNES versions of said games were a bit lazy.

Edited by Kirk_Johnston
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 7/27/2022 at 7:30 PM, Kirk_Johnston said:

When SNES games are viewed at the display aspect ratio that actually makes the art look proportionally correct and accurate to how the original artist drew it, they almost universally look quite a bit nicer (correct proportions, cleaner colours, sharper pixels). In the vast majority of cases that would be the 8:7 display aspect ratio rather than the 4:3 display aspect ratio

That doesn't even make sense. The SNES, like all other classic consoles, was intended for use with a 4:3 TV/monitor. Even when Nintendo themselves included the monitor with the SNES hardware, such as with the "Super System" arcade machine, it was a 4:3 monitor. If there are SNES games that don't look right when displayed at 4:3 then whoever programmed them screwed up, i.e., making a game's aspect ratio look wrong on the intended video display device is inherently a screwup, by definition. It would be like a company making a DVD containing, e.g., an old 4:3 TV show, not look right unless it's displayed at 1.5:1 (DVDs have a native digital resolution of 720 x 480, which = 1.5:1 AR with square pixels).

 

The primary resolution of the SNES is 256 x 224, which is a 1.14:1 AR (8:7), but that has nothing to do with it's intended DAR. The SNES only has analog video outputs, which means it was intended to be displayed on a CRT TV/monitor, which makes sense, because that's what ~everyone had when the SNES was released. CRTs don't have pixels. When digital video is converted to an analog video signal, there is no more pixel information. Instead there are just continuously variable voltages which drive the electron guns to varying levels of intensity, along with sync information. The CRT TV/monitor, when properly adjusted, will completely fill its 4:3 screen with the raster, regardless of what the AR of the original digital video may have been.

 

When you display an SNES or other classic console's video on a device it wasn't originally intended to be seen on (i.e., LCDs and other types of digital displays) you run into problems, because those have a fixed pixel grid, and the only way you can avoid scaling errors/artifacts is to display it in its native resolution or an exact multiple thereof, which in the case of the SNES results in a 1.14:1 AR. With a Genesis you'd get a 1.43:1 AR. With an NES you'd get a 1.07:1 resolution (nearly square). It's all over the board with the old consoles, but they all had an intended DAR of 4:3 (1.33:1), because that's the aspect ratio of the CRT TVs that they were designed to connect to.

 

The same thing applies to old arcade machines in general by the way. Most of them had a digital resolution that was something other than 4:3, yet they all came with 4:3 monitors. For example, nearly all of Nintendo's classic arcade games were 256 x 224, the same as the SNES's primary resolution (Popeye is the most notable exception, which was 512 x 448 [interlaced], which is also 1.14:1 because it's an exact multiple of 256 x 224, and is the same as the SNES's "high res" mode resolution), and they all came with 4:3 monitors which were adjusted from the factory to fill the screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MaximRecoil said:

That doesn't even make sense. The SNES, like all other classic consoles, was intended for use with a 4:3 TV/monitor. Even when Nintendo themselves included the monitor with the SNES hardware, such as with the "Super System" arcade machine, it was a 4:3 monitor. If there are SNES games that don't look right when displayed at 4:3 then whoever programmed them screwed up, i.e., making a game's aspect ratio look wrong on the intended video display device is inherently a screwup, by definition. It would be like a company making a DVD containing, e.g., an old 4:3 TV show, not look right unless it's displayed at 1.5:1 (DVDs have a native digital resolution of 720 x 480, which = 1.5:1 AR with square pixels).

 

The primary resolution of the SNES is 256 x 224, which is a 1.14:1 AR (8:7), but that has nothing to do with it's intended DAR. The SNES only has analog video outputs, which means it was intended to be displayed on a CRT TV/monitor, which makes sense, because that's what ~everyone had when the SNES was released. CRTs don't have pixels. When digital video is converted to an analog video signal, there is no more pixel information. Instead there are just continuously variable voltages which drive the electron guns to varying levels of intensity, along with sync information. The CRT TV/monitor, when properly adjusted, will completely fill its 4:3 screen with the raster, regardless of what the AR of the original digital video may have been.

 

When you display an SNES or other classic console's video on a device it wasn't originally intended to be seen on (i.e., LCDs and other types of digital displays) you run into problems, because those have a fixed pixel grid, and the only way you can avoid scaling errors/artifacts is to display it in its native resolution or an exact multiple thereof, which in the case of the SNES results in a 1.14:1 AR. With a Genesis you'd get a 1.43:1 AR. With an NES you'd get a 1.07:1 resolution (nearly square). It's all over the board with the old consoles, but they all had an intended DAR of 4:3 (1.33:1), because that's the aspect ratio of the CRT TVs that they were designed to connect to.

 

The same thing applies to old arcade machines in general by the way. Most of them had a digital resolution that was something other than 4:3, yet they all came with 4:3 monitors. For example, nearly all of Nintendo's classic arcade games were 256 x 224, the same as the SNES's primary resolution (Popeye is the most notable exception, which was 512 x 448 [interlaced], which is also 1.14:1 because it's an exact multiple of 256 x 224, and is the same as the SNES's "high res" mode resolution), and they all came with 4:3 monitors which were adjusted from the factory to fill the screen.

Stop being a nerd.

 

These games may have been viewed on 4:3 displays originally, and the original art was usually slightly stretched and distorted as a result, unless it was specifically created slightly squished and distorted in the first place to take this inevitable stretch and distortion into account, but the vast majority were created with the art drawn looking proportionally correct at a 1:1 pixel aspect ratio, and indeed, in most cases wouldn't work within the background tile and sprite tile, colour palette and video memory limitations of the console if the original creators tried to do otherwise. That is just a fact. And because that's the case, they won't look proportionally correct when viewed at anything other than a 1:1 pixel aspect ratio. It's that simple.

 

So, it's 2022, and we now have multiple official and unofficial ways to play these games in modern times, and basically all of them other than original hardware allow you to choose the official Nintendo "perfect pixel" mode that displays them in the 1:1 pixel aspect ratio the vast majority of the art for these games was originally drawn in, as in the one the art looks proportionally correct in.

 

Now, if you want to play the games in 4:3 in 2022, that's totally your choice, but they will indeed look all stretched and distorted. That is just a matter of fact. And they will obviously not look quite as nice as they would without any stretch and distortion.

 

If other people want to play them in "perfect pixel" mode without distortion, that is their choice, and they will indeed now look proportionally correct and nicer than they would with the old 4:3 stretch and distortion.

 

But, only showing them proportionally stretched and distorted in a video like this is bull, because it's 2022 and the vast majority of people who might want to play these games in modern times absolutely do not have to play them stretched and distorted if they don't want to, so only showing them stretched and distorted is not an honest representation of how these games will look for all those people.

 

People should be shown how these games look in both aspect ratios these days, because they are officially playable in both aspect ratios, and then they can see how they look in both modes and decide for themselves which aspect ratio they prefer and indeed fairly judge how the SNES versions compare to the other versions based on that.

 

And I think any person doing these "vs" videos in 2022 who only shows the SNES versions all stretched and distorted in 4:3 is either an old fart and/or retro gaming snob who thinks the only "legit" way to play SNES games is on the original console displayed on an ancient CRT TV or is biased and deliberately trying to skew the results. And this applies to people basically arguing for and defending the same thing imo.

 

And that's the truth.

Edited by Kirk_Johnston
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

Stop being a nerd.

Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also, Comical Irony Alert.

 

2 hours ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

These games may have been viewed on 4:3 displays originally

There's no "may" about it. They were intended to be viewed on a 4:3 display.

 

2 hours ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

and the original art was usually slightly stretched and distorted as a result

Only if the programmer screwed up.

 

2 hours ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

unless it was specifically created slightly squished and distorted in the first place to take this inevitable stretch and distortion into account

Yes, that's what you're supposed to do, obviously. It's like when shooting a movie on 35mm film, like nearly all movies were shot on until fairly recently. 35mm film has an aspect ratio of 1.375:1, but most movies have been intended to be viewed in a "widescreen" aspect ratio since about the 1950s. One way of doing that is to film with an anamorphic lens, which squeezes a ~2.35:1 image onto a 1.375:1 frame of film, and then another anamorphic lens is used on the film projector to "unsqueeze" it to its intended 2.35:1 AR. According to your "logic," the correct way to view such a movie is at 1.375:1, with everything looking ridiculously tall and skinny.

 

2 hours ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

but the vast majority were created with the art drawn looking proportionally correct at a 1:1 pixel aspect ratio

First, says who? And second, if that's the case, then they screwed up, by definition. Video or film source material is always supposed to be created so that it looks correct on the intended display, obviously. What's the point of making something that only looks correct on a display that ~no one has?

 

2 hours ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

and indeed, in most cases wouldn't work within the background tile and sprite tile, colour palette and video memory limitations of the console if the original creators tried to do otherwise. That is just a fact.

No, that's not a fact. Also, like I already said, the Nintendo Super System arcade machine came with a 4:3 monitor and the raster filled the screen. That alone proves that Nintendo intended for SNES games to be viewed at 4:3, since they could have adjusted the monitor's horizontal width coil to make the raster only fill a 1.14:1 area of the 1.33:1 screen, resulting in a pillar-boxed picture, had they wanted to. The same goes for the rest of their classic arcade games that had the same 256 x 224 resolution that the SNES has.

 

2 hours ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

So, it's 2022, and we now have multiple official and unofficial ways to play these games in modern times, and basically all of them other than original hardware allow you to choose the official Nintendo "perfect pixel" mode that displays them in the 1:1 pixel aspect ratio the vast majority of the art for these games was originally drawn in, as in the one the art looks proportionally correct in.

"Pixel perfect" just means that you don't get any fractional scaling when you're using a glorified calculator screen rather than the type of display that these games were originally intended to be displayed on. It doesn't mean it's the correct display aspect ratio. And even then, it's not really "pixel perfect." If it were, the picture would look like a postage stamp surrounded by a sea of black on a modern "4K," or even 1080p, display, i.e., a tiny 256 x 224 picture in the middle of a  3840 x 2160 or 1920 x 1080 pixel grid.

 

2 hours ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

Now, if you want to play the games stretched in 2022, that's totally your choice, but they will indeed look all stretched and distorted.

No, they don't. They look how they were intended to look. When you connect an SNES via the official Nintendo cables to a standard 15 kHz 4:3 CRT TV, the raster automatically fills the screen, therefore it's doing what it's designed to do. They could have pillar-boxed the games if they'd wanted to, so that the picture area displayed at 1.14:1, but they didn't.

 

2 hours ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

If other people want to play them without distortion, that is their choice, and they will indeed now look proportionally correct and nicer than they would with the old 4:3 stretch and distortion.

You have that backwards. If you're viewing SNES games in 1.14:1 then you're seeing distortion relative to the intended DAR, which is 4:3.

 

2 hours ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

And I think any person doing these "vs" videos in 2022 who only shows the SNES versions all stretched and distorted in 4:3

4:3 is the correct DAR for all of the old consoles, and why are you singling out the SNES? By your "logic," the Genesis is all stretched/squeezed and distorted too, because its native aspect ratio is 1.43:1, not 1.33:1 (4:3).

 

2 hours ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

is either an old fart and/or retro gaming snob who thinks the only "legit" way to play SNES games is on the original console displayed on an ancient CRT TV

Displaying them on a 15 kHz CRT is the only way that looks good, and it's also the only way to avoid display lag. As for "ancient," the SNES itself is also ancient, as are all of the official games for it.

 

It's not going to look good on a modern digital display no matter how you slice, for reasons that have nothing to do with aspect ratio. If you display it in its native resolution it looks pixelated and tiny. If you make it mostly fill the screen by using an exact multiple of its native resolution, then it exaggerates the pixelated look because now each of its original pixels are occupying 15 pixels on your "4K" screen. If you make it fill the screen using a filter combined with the scaling, it mostly eliminates the pixelated look but it has an ugly Gaussian blur or some other unnatural smoothing effect instead, which is even worse.

Edited by MaximRecoil
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, MaximRecoil said:

Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also, Comical Irony Alert.

 

There's no "may" about it. They were intended to be viewed on a 4:3 display.

 

Only if the programmer screwed up.

 

Yes, that's what you're supposed to do, obviously. It's like when shooting a movie on 35mm film, like nearly all movies were shot on until fairly recently. 35mm film has an aspect ratio of 1.375:1, but most movies have been intended to be viewed in a "widescreen" aspect ratio since about the 1950s. One way of doing that is to film with an anamorphic lens, which squeezes a ~2.35:1 image onto a 1.375:1 frame of film, and then another anamorphic lens is used on the film projector to "unsqueeze" it to its intended 2.35:1 AR. According to your "logic," the correct way to view such a movie is at 1.375:1, with everything looking ridiculously tall and skinny.

 

First, says who? And second, if that's the case, then they screwed up, by definition. Video or film source material is always supposed to be created so that it looks correct on the intended display, obviously. What's the point of making something that only looks correct on a display that ~no one has?

 

No, that's not a fact. Also, like I already said, the Nintendo Super System arcade machine came with a 4:3 monitor and the raster filled the screen. That alone proves that Nintendo intended for SNES games to be viewed at 4:3, since they could have adjusted the monitor's horizontal width coil to make the raster only fill a 1.14:1 area of the 1.33:1 screen, resulting in a pillar-boxed picture, had they wanted to. The same goes for the rest of their classic arcade games that had the same 256 x 224 resolution that the SNES has.

 

"Pixel perfect" just means that you don't get any fractional scaling when you're using a glorified calculator screen rather than the type of display that these games were originally intended to be displayed on. It doesn't mean it's the correct display aspect ratio. And even then, it's not really "pixel perfect." If it were, the picture would look like a postage stamp surrounded by a sea of black on a modern "4K," or even 1080p, display, i.e., a tiny 256 x 224 picture in the middle of a  3840 x 2160 or 1920 x 1080 pixel grid.

 

No, they don't. They look how they were intended to look. When you connect an SNES via the official Nintendo cables to a standard 15 kHz 4:3 CRT TV, the raster automatically fills the screen, therefore it's doing what it's designed to do. They could have pillar-boxed the games if they'd wanted to, so that the picture area displayed at 1.14:1, but they didn't.

 

You have that backwards. If you're viewing SNES games in 1.14:1 then you're seeing distortion relative to the intended DAR, which is 4:3.

 

4:3 is the correct DAR for all of the old consoles, and why are you singling out the SNES? By your "logic," the Genesis is all stretched/squeezed and distorted too, because its native aspect ratio is 1.43:1, not 1.33:1 (4:3).

 

Displaying them on a 15 kHz CRT is the only way that looks good, and it's also the only way to avoid display lag. As for "ancient," the SNES itself is also ancient, as are all of the official games for it.

 

It's not going to look good on a modern digital display no matter how you slice, for reasons that have nothing to do with aspect ratio. If you display it in its native resolution it looks pixelated and tiny. If you make it mostly fill the screen by using an exact multiple of its native resolution, then it exaggerates the pixelated look because now each of its original pixels are occupying 15 pixels on your "4K" screen. If you make it fill the screen using a filter combined with the scaling, it mostly eliminates the pixelated look but it has an ugly Gaussian blur or some other unnatural smoothing effect instead, which is even worse.

I'm not going to waste my time responding to every one of your responses to my post, suffice to say, if you actually believe 4:3 is the non-distorted version of SNES pixel art and perfect pixel/1:1 is the distorted version of SNES pixel art, especially when based on how it was obviously originally drawn in the vast majority of cases and indeed what looks proportionally correct in the vast majority of cases, you're not thinking in the same realm that I am. So let's not waste each other's time.

 

PS. Go actually do some research if you honestly believe more SNES game art was drawn pre-squished to account for the inevitable stretch when viewed on a 4:3 display than simply being drawn looking correctly proportioned before the inevitable stretch when viewed on a 4:3 display: https://forums.nesdev.org/viewtopic.php?t=23885

Edited by Kirk_Johnston
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very simple. The SNES outputs a 4:3 video signal, and only a 4:3 video signal, and it was intentionally designed to do so, i.e., it didn't happen by accident. That means that 4:3 is the intended display aspect ratio (DAR) for the SNES, by definition.

 

1 hour ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

suffice to say, if you actually believe 4:3 is the non-distorted version of SNES pixel art and perfect pixel/1:1 is the distorted version of SNES pixel art

Why do you think they would have drawn out SNES game pixel designs using square pixels, since that's not going to look like how it will look when playing the game? It should be designed using a pixel aspect ratio (PAR) of 1.066:1, which is what you get when you fill a 4:3 rectangle with 57,344 equally-sized pixels.

 

Are you even aware that pixels aren't inherently square? Square pixels are, for the most part, a fairly recent thing. For example, VCDs didn't have a PAR of 1:1, and neither did/do DVDs. And if you look at the native resolutions of old video games in general, they rarely matched their 4:3 DAR, which means their PARs were nearly always something other than 1:1. The Capcom CPS-1 arcade hardware (e.g., Street Fighter II) had a native resolution of 384 x 224, which is 1.71:1 if you make the unwarranted assumption of square pixels, which is nearly 16:9. So I guess you think this is how the game was intended to look:

 

sf20001.png.7250a243d861e2a4ef7b4c35b2a9e1a7.png

 

Of course, anyone who's ever played an original Street Fighter II arcade machine knows that they had a 4:3 monitor, which makes the picture look like this:

 

sf20002.png.0e82915c1294990df1b35643f148b0de.png

 

Speaking of SFII, this is what the SNES port looks like at its native resolution with square pixels (1.14:1 AR):

 

StreetFighter2001.png.e2a6409b000531f8c1a6466e4bf5f59a.png

 

Looking kind of skinny, there Ryu and Blanka. But that's the "correct" aspect ratio, right?

1 hour ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

you're not living in the same realm that I am.

 

You're apparently living in the Twilight Zone, considering there's conclusive, by definition, proof that the SNES's intended DAR is 4:3. The most obvious proof is that the SNES only generates a 4:3 video signal. And then there's the fact that the Nintendo Super System arcade machine came with a 4:3 monitor. And how about the 4:3 screenshots from Nintendo themselves, such as on the box for Super Mario World, which was an SNES pack-in game?

 

14630_back.thumb.jpg.0c33b8a0f2d13fe66d3bc22fa2deeb09.jpg

 

I suppose Nintendo didn't know what they were doing. How could they have? After all, they didn't have you, nor anyone else who has misinterpreted the "pixel perfect" lingo used in modern emulators and thinks that pixels are inherently square, to tell them that 1.14:1 is the correct DAR for the SNES, not 4:3.

Edited by MaximRecoil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, MaximRecoil said:

It's very simple. The SNES outputs a 4:3 video signal, and only a 4:3 video signal, and it was intentionally designed to do so, i.e., it didn't happen by accident. That means that 4:3 is the intended display aspect ratio (DAR) for the SNES, by definition.

 

Why do you think they would have drawn out SNES game pixel designs using square pixels, since that's not going to look like how it will look when playing the game? It should be designed using a pixel aspect ratio (PAR) of 1.066:1, which is what you get when you fill a 4:3 rectangle with 57,344 equally-sized pixels.

 

Are you even aware that pixels aren't inherently square? Square pixels are, for the most part, a fairly recent thing. For example, VCDs didn't have a PAR of 1:1, and neither did/do DVDs. And if you look at the native resolutions of old video games in general, they rarely matched their 4:3 DAR, which means their PARs were nearly always something other than 1:1. The Capcom CPS-1 arcade hardware (e.g., Street Fighter II) had a native resolution of 384 x 224, which is 1.71:1 if you make the unwarranted assumption of square pixels, which is nearly 16:9. So I guess you think this is how the game was intended to look:

 

sf20001.png.7250a243d861e2a4ef7b4c35b2a9e1a7.png

 

Of course, anyone who's ever played an original Street Fighter II arcade machine knows that they had a 4:3 monitor, which makes the picture look like this:

 

sf20002.png.0e82915c1294990df1b35643f148b0de.png

 

Speaking of SFII, this is what the SNES port looks like at its native resolution with square pixels (1.14:1 AR):

 

StreetFighter2001.png.e2a6409b000531f8c1a6466e4bf5f59a.png

 

Looking kind of skinny, there Ryu and Blanka. But that's the "correct" aspect ratio, right?

 

You're apparently living in the Twilight Zone, considering there's conclusive, by definition, proof that the SNES's intended DAR is 4:3. The most obvious proof is that the SNES only generates a 4:3 video signal. And then there's the fact that the Nintendo Super System arcade machine came with a 4:3 monitor. And how about the 4:3 screenshots from Nintendo themselves, such as on the box for Super Mario World, which was an SNES pack-in game?

 

14630_back.thumb.jpg.0c33b8a0f2d13fe66d3bc22fa2deeb09.jpg

 

I suppose Nintendo didn't know what they were doing. How could they have? After all, they didn't have you, nor anyone else who has misinterpreted the "pixel perfect" lingo used in modern emulators and thinks that pixels are inherently square, to tell them that 1.14:1 is the correct DAR for the SNES, not 4:3.

 

It's laughable that you picked a couple of the very rare games drawn with the stretch to 4:3 in mind to make your argument (one properly drawn with the stretch in mind, and one with only one or two minor elements adjusted to not look so stretched in 4:3), and just conveniently ignored that the vast majority of SNES games were in fact drawn such that they look proportionally correct in a pixel aspect ratio that is now officially called pixel perfect mode, which is basically an 8:7 display aspect ratio or 1:1 pixel aspect ratio.

 

Note: I'm not going to argue the exact nerd decimals of the proportion figures with you.

 

But that's how people like you work. Do you actually believe people just believe your manipulation of the facts--maybe they do. A hundred to one examples prove the opposite of your claim, but you go with the one or two in a hundred that support your misguided view. And I already posted a link showing you that the number/percentage of SNES games drawn pre-squished to take the 4:3 stretch into account is vastly smaller than those drawn basically completely ignoring the stretch, in most cases entirely and in some cases for like 99% of the game, which amounts to the same thing: https://forums.nesdev.org/viewtopic.php?t=23885 (and that link even covers those examples you mentioned)

 

And, you really are confused about what I'm saying here too. I'm not saying the original SNES games weren't viewed in 4:3 on old CRTs or that they weren't setup to output like that either. Only a moron would say that, or indeed think someone was even alluding to that. I'm telling you, matter of fact, the vast majority of them were made with the art drawn looking proportionally correct at an 8:7 display aspect ratio (or 1:1 pixel aspect ratio) and therefore look distorted in a 4:3 display aspect ratio--it's not up for debate.

 

So, in 2022, where we now have the official perfect pixel mode that finally shows that source pixel art as originally drawn by the artist without stretch and distortion, it's utterly disingenuous to act like that's the only way people will see SNES visuals, especially when making these "vs" videos. Again, only old-fart retro-elitist snobs would believe/assert that and/or people who have an agenda who would try to suggest that's the way it is.

 

Basically, certain people want to use a false argument that SNES game visuals are stretched, be it for stupid elitist reasons or nefarious purposes, but in 2022 that's exactly what it is, a false argument.

 

See, here's Super Mario World as anyone playing games on an official SNES Classic Mini in perfect pixel mode can view it (or on a DS, or a Switch, or any clone system or any emulator), without any stretch or distortion whatsoever: 

 

 

And here's Actraiser similarly:

 

 

And Parodius: Non-Sense Fantasy:

 

 

And Mega Man X2:

 

 

And Turtles in Time:

 

 

And F-Zero:

 

 

And Donkey Kong Country:

 

 

And Yoshi's Island:

 

 

Etc.

 

That ^^^ is the the objective truth of what anyone [other than the small number of people stuck on original hardware output on ancient CRTs] playing SNES games [both officially and unofficially] in 2022 can and will see if they choose to--no stretch or distortion necessary at all--and it's glorious.

Edited by Kirk_Johnston
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

It's laughable that you picked a couple of the very rare games drawn with the stretch to 4:3 in mind to make your argument (one entirely, and one with only minor elements adjusted to not look so stretched in 4:3)

What "couple" games are you talking about, and what "minor elements" are you talking about? What's laughable is your status as a Blatant Reality Denier. Again, the SNES can only generate a 4:3 video signal, and it was intentionally designed that way. That means that the SNES's intended DAR is 4:3.

 

1 hour ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

and just conveniently ignored that the vast majority were drawn such that they look proportionally correct in a pixel aspect ratio that is now officially called pixel perfect mode, which is basically an 8:7 display aspect ratio or 1:1 pixel aspect ratio.

I didn't "ignore" it, conveniently or otherwise, but rather, you never established any such thing. You simply made a mere assertion, and mere assertions can legitimately be dismissed out of hand. Also, "pixel perfect mode" has nothing at all to do with PAR. You seeing square pixels (1:1 PAR) when you enable it is your TV's fault, because it has square pixels, obviously. If it had pixels with a 1.066:1 PAR you would see SNES games in their correct 4:3 DAR when you enabled "pixel perfect mode."

 

1 hour ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

But that's how people like you work. Do you actually believe people just believe your manipulation of the facts--maybe they do.

 

Comical Irony Alert: Part II, you know, coming from the Blatant Reality Denier.

1 hour ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

A hundred to one examples say the opposite of you, but you go with the one or two in a hundred that support your misguided view. And I already posted a link showing you that the games drawn pre-squished to take the 4:3 stretch into account is vastly smaller than those drawn basically completely ignoring the stretch, in most cases entirely and in some cases for like 99% of the game, which amounts to the same thing: https://forums.nesdev.org/viewtopic.php?t=23885 (and that link even covers those examples you mentioned)

How they were drawn is utterly irrelevant to the fact that the SNES's intended DAR is 4:3. If the programmers of any games didn't take the 1.066:1 PAR into account when drawing the pixel designs, then that's their own failing, because they were programming games for hardware with a known DAR of 4:3. Also, in most cases there's nothing to compare the graphical elements to in order to say for sure what the programmer had in mind. I posted a screenshot of the SNES SFII port because there is something to compare it to, i.e., the original arcade version, so we know the characters and other graphical elements aren't supposed to look as narrow as they do at 1.14:1.

 

1 hour ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

And, you really are confused about what I'm saying here too. I'm not saying the original SNES games weren't viewed in 4:3 on old CRTs or that they weren't setup to output like that either. Only a moron would say that, or indeed think someone was even alluding to that.

You don't seem to understand what the SNES's 4:3 DAR means. It means that Nintendo intended for SNES games to be viewed at 4:3, obviously. Anyone programming for a hardware platform without taking into account its DAR is obviously not doing his job properly.

 

1 hour ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

I'm telling you, matter of fact, the vast majority of them were made with the art drawn looking proportionally correct at an 8:7 display aspect ratio and therefore look distorted in a 4:3 display aspect ratio

No, it's not a matter of fact. Again, you haven't established any such thing.

 

1 hour ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

it's not up for debate

That's true, though, ironically, you're the one who has no grounds for a debate.

 

1 hour ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

So, in 2022, where we now have the official perfect pixel mode that finally shows that originally art without stretch and distortion

"Pixel perfect mode" is not a function of the SNES, it's a function of emulators, which they did by default for many years before Nintendo started releasing their own emulators. And as I've already said, it has nothing to do with PAR. You see them as square pixels only because your TV has a fixed grid of square pixels.

 

1 hour ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

it's utterly disingenuous to act like that's the only way people will see SNES visuals.

Who is doing that? People have been able to see SNES games in 1.14:1 for as long as SNES emulators have existed (circa 1997).

 

1 hour ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

Again, only old-fart retro-elitist snobs would believe that and/or people who have an agenda who would try to suggest that's the way it is.

That sentence doesn't even make sense, since it followed from another sentence that doesn't make sense until you can say exactly who is "acting like that's the only way people will see SNES visuals." No one would be acting like that unless they are completely unaware that some people use SNES emulators without correcting the aspect ratio of the raw pixel dump.

 

Here are the facts:

 

- The SNES's DAR is 4:3, which means SNES games are meant to be displayed at 4:3.

 

- Nintendo obviously endorsed the 4:3 DAR that they chose for the SNES since they didn't do anything to negate it, such as pillar-boxing their games and/or adjusting the included 4:3 monitor in their Super System arcade machine to squeeze the picture down to 1.14:1. Also, they published 4:3 screenshots of SNES games, such as on game cartridge boxes, in advertisements, and in their magazine, Nintendo Power.

 

On the other hand, your assertion that...

 

"[...] the vast majority of them were made with the art drawn looking proportionally correct at an 8:7 display aspect ratio and therefore look distorted in a 4:3 display aspect ratio"

 

... is just that, a mere assertion, not a fact.

Edited by MaximRecoil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MaximRecoil said:

What "couple" games are you talking about, and what "minor elements" are you talking about? What's laughable is your status as a Blatant Reality Denier. Again, the SNES can only generate a 4:3 video signal, and it was intentionally designed that way. That means that the SNES's intended DAR is 4:3.

 

I didn't "ignore" it, conveniently or otherwise, but rather, you never established any such thing. You simply made a mere assertion, and mere assertions can legitimately be dismissed out of hand. Also, "pixel perfect mode" has nothing at all to do with PAR. You seeing square pixels (1:1 PAR) when you enable it is your TV's fault, because it has square pixels, obviously. If it had pixels with a 1.066:1 PAR you would see SNES games in their correct 4:3 DAR when you enabled "pixel perfect mode."

 

 

Comical Irony Alert: Part II, you know, coming from the Blatant Reality Denier.

How they were drawn is utterly irrelevant to the fact that the SNES's intended DAR is 4:3. If the programmers of any games didn't take the 1.066:1 PAR into account when drawing the pixel designs, then that's their own failing, because they were programming games for hardware with a known DAR of 4:3. Also, in most cases there's nothing to compare the graphical elements to in order to say for sure what the programmer had in mind. I posted a screenshot of the SNES SFII port because there is something to compare it to, i.e., the original arcade version, so we know the characters and other graphical elements aren't supposed to look as narrow as they do at 1.14:1.

 

You don't seem to understand what the SNES's 4:3 DAR means. It means that Nintendo intended for SNES games to be viewed at 4:3, obviously. Anyone programming for a hardware platform without taking into account its DAR is obviously not doing his job properly.

 

No, it's not a matter of fact. Again, you haven't established any such thing.

 

That's true, though, ironically, you're the one who has no grounds for a debate.

 

"Pixel perfect mode" is not a function of the SNES, it's a function of emulators, which they did by default for many years before Nintendo started releasing their own emulators. And as I've already said, it has nothing to do with PAR. You see them as square pixels only because your TV has a fixed grid of square pixels.

 

Who is doing that? People have been able to see SNES games in 1.14:1 for as long as SNES emulators have existed (since 1996).

 

That sentence doesn't even make sense, since it followed from another sentence that doesn't make sense until you can say exactly who is "acting like that's the only way people will see SNES visuals." No one would be acting like that unless they are completely unaware that some people use SNES emulators without correcting the aspect ratio of the raw pixel dump.

 

Here are the facts:

 

- The SNES's DAR is 4:3, which means SNES games are meant to be displayed at 4:3.

 

- Nintendo was obviously happy with the 4:3 DAR that they chose for the SNES since they didn't do anything to negate it, such as pillar-boxing their games and/or adjusting the included 4:3 monitor in their Super System arcade machine to squeeze the picture down to 1.14:1. Also, they published 4:3 screenshots of SNES games, such as on game cartridge boxes, in advertisements, and in their magazine, Nintendo Power.

 

On the other hand, your assertion that...

 

"[...] the vast majority of them were made with the art drawn looking proportionally correct at an 8:7 display aspect ratio and therefore look distorted in a 4:3 display aspect ratio"

 

... is just that, a mere assertion, not a fact.

See above. I've covered everything that needs to be covered, and other people can make their own minds up on who's doing exactly what here and why. I'm not wasting any more breath on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

See above.

I already did "see above," obviously, since I refuted everything you said above.

 

2 minutes ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

I've covered everything that needs to be covered

All you've done is repeatedly make the mere assertion that:

 

"[...] the vast majority of them were made with the art drawn looking proportionally correct at an 8:7 display aspect ratio and therefore look distorted in a 4:3 display aspect ratio"

 

Mere assertions ≠ facts.

 

4 minutes ago, Kirk_Johnston said:

I'm not wasting any more breath on you.

Since you have no further arguments (not that your previous mere assertions were actually arguments to begin with), your tacit concession is noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...