Is it weird that I prefer the look of pixel art as it's displayed on modern monitors as opposed to CRTs?
To clarify, I mean i like sprites looking more clean and blocky as opposed to blurred on an older display.
I mean I love CRT art but people also overstate how much CRT art was "made for that"; lots of quality CRTs had very sharp pixels and the artists were drawing for those sharp pixels. Plenty of older games look great with sharp pixels and were really meant to be played that way. Not everything was Vagrant Story.
wait, how were they meant to be played with sharp pixels? what kind of display would allow that?
Quality CRTs? I used to have a Sony Trinitron that was sharper than my current LCD
so funny that gamers are paying huge amounts to get 144hz monitors when we had 500hz monitors for awhile
As I understand it most consoles in the US were shipped with composite cables, you know the ones where the entire video signal travels through one yellow colored cable. Those are very bad. They bleed all the pixels together. Meanwhile in France and I assume just Europe in general, we got Scart cables with our console, which carry an RGB signal that's much better quality. Just look up "Snes composite vs RGB" comparisons on YouTube. It's night and day.
It's always kinda frustrating to me when people insist retro pixel art games are all MEANT to be played on a shitty signal that blurs everything together. Sure some games took advantage of that, I can believe it. Yes dithering can look nice when it bleeds together but if your color palette is limited you're going to use dithering patterns in your pixel art regardless of what video signal the system happens to be connected with. To assert every game was made for composite signal assumes everyone in the world had the same shit CRT set up north america got by default. That is simply not true.
