alt Hacker NewsThey hold up pretty well when you play them as they were originally supposed to: on a CRT if you can or using emulators' CRT filters if you can't. Trying to play them at very high resolutions on crisp LCD displays is the worst way to go IMO.
Replies
Yeah, any 8/16-bit pixel are t wasn't made to be viewed on a screen with that high a resolution. CRTs smoosh/blur the image a bit so you don't see all the hardlines.
> They hold up pretty well when you play them as they were originally supposed to: on a CRT if you can or using emulators' CRT filters if you can't
On the emulator side I would definitely recommend Duckstation. It's performant, has great UI / UX and also has a CRT filter available by default that more or less recreates the original look, even slightly warping the image to make you feel like you are staring into a TV tube.
It's interesting how different it is from the N64, which was seemingly designed to produce perfectly correct pixels even though no player would own displays that could really show the difference. I guess that's what you get when you let SGI design the GPU.
What I find truly ironic is how CRT shaders work best on a 4k display with good HDR performance.
4k lets you scale the image and insert scanlines without scaling artifacts and with enough extra pixels to make the scanlines feel properly soft.
HDR lets the shader compensate for the brightness lost to the CRT filter without desaturating the color.
The PS1 didn't even have perpsective corrected texture mapping, some titles handled that manually to make it look less shit but not all titles did so.
The evolution of graphics was brutal in the 90s and early 00s, but somewhere around the PS3's appearance it slowed down since lighting models were becoming "good enough" on the PS3 for not being annoyingly bad and asset creation costs became the limiting factor rather than hardware.