Although often tossed together into a singular ‘retro game’ aesthetic, the first game consoles that focused on 3D graphics like the Nintendo 64 and Sony PlayStation featured very distinct visuals that make these different systems easy to distinguish. Yet whereas the N64 mostly suffered from a small texture buffer, the PS’s weak graphics hardware necessitated compromises that led to the highly defining jittery and wobbly PlayStation graphics. …
Removed by mod
I’m not sure how to reply to this.
Mainly because my own math skill is unrelated to processor technology of the late 1990s.
This reads like someone who was born after the CRT era trying to describe them. No, you’re just wrong about that. CRT monitors had a huge effect on the output of the visuals in contrast with modern screens.
Removed by mod
Were you hoping for a forum where people didn’t call you out on your nonsense?
Hey now, I’m enjoying his nonsense. It’s fun to see what holes people dig themselves into.
Pixels on a CRT aren‘t quadratic. Light bleeds between them, and persisted between frames. That was definitely some kind of post processing you could call masking and the games of that era leaned heavily into it. Hardware and games were designed to be displayed on a CRT.
Removed by mod
CRTs don’t „have“ pixels, but they display a signal that originated from a pixelised source. Popping colors and different gamma curves is not a contradiction to what I said.
Removed by mod
You’re welcome
You must be real fun at parties.