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.
certain people like to whip out the NES/Famicom as an example of a console whose games look objectively WRONG unless played on a shitty CRT via a composite (or RF!) connection, because that's all the original consumer models supported, but here's a fun fact for you: a lot of Japanese studios had development systems with RGB PPUs hooked up to RGB monitors. we have tons of razor-sharp promotional screenshots, videos, and manual scans to back this up. Nintendo themselves used RGB PPUs and workstations connected to RGB monitors. i know of at least one game, Hao-kun no Fushigi na Tabi (aka Mystery Quest), that uses color gradients that only look correct on an RGB PPU. many studios did indeed develop their games using consumer hardware (e.g. Sunsoft; we have photos of their development setup and backup copies of their FDS-based tools), but i'd wager most of them weren't taking the time to carefully tweak their dot patterns to look just so on your average consumer TV, and those "hidden details" brought out by NTSC artifacting that weird CRT evangelists on Twitter love to point out probably weren't intentional at all.
tl;dr there's nothing wrong with liking "clean and blocky" pixel art and CRT evangelists need to stop being elitist weirdos
