It is fairly common in retro game communities to have people comment on how old games, especially those on consoles, were "meant" to look on CRT displays, and often throw up some blown up photos to demonstrate their point, like so:
So far, they're not wrong, inasmuch as they're just stating facts about technology and the development realities of the time. Further, I respect that they're trying to combat another kind of obnoxious nostalgism, that of pixelism. Too often there are people who insist that every pixel is sacred and so should not be changed in remakes or with filters, which is obviously untrue, even without this rebuttal.
Ironically, then, that's exactly where a lot of CRT nostalgics go wrong.
Too many of them act like every pixel was designed specifically to look good on CRTs, and that playing them any other way is some kind of heresy. And this is where I have to step in and point out some big, gaping holes in their arguments.
Like I said before, it's certainly true that yes, artists of the time did have to draw for CRTs, because CRT displays were the only kinds of displays realistically available to most people. From this, it certainly also follows that artists who cared about how their work looked got it checked on a CRT TV if they were drawing for a console game.
The problem, however, is the pretentiousness in the attitude of most CRT nostalgics. While it's true that some artists, specifically the ones who really cared about their work, made alterations specifically to make their work match to their vision on a CRT screen, the fact of the matter is, most video game art is designed not to impress people with its artistry, but to be reusable and to "stick to the background", aka look good enough without being distracting.
Game artists didn't (and still don't) draw whatever they pleased for free. Video game development, even back then, especially back then, was heavily constrained by budgets, deadlines and technological limitations. So it follows that in fact, most assets were not lovingly crafted pixel by pixel to look good for this or that display, but rather had just enough effort put into them to be "good enough." Not only that, but given the limitations, they needed to focus their efforts onto specific assets, which unsurprisingly often ended up looking distinctly sharper and more detailed than other assets. Almost like that was their intention for them all along.
Given these facts, is it not folly to suggest that not playing old games with a CRT monitor or some sort of CRT filter "ruins" their graphics somehow? Especially when most of the time, the effect is only a subjective improvement, with lots of downsides for people who don't care about having a dark blurry screen covering everything. There's a reason the world moved away from CRTs, after all.
To be very clear, I have nothing against such filters existing, nothing against people who prefer playing their old games with such filters, and definitely nothing against people who like how such filters look. Aesthetics are innately very subjective, and there should ideally be choices for people to play games how they want. My complaint is mainly with certain overtly pretentious and staid attitudes, as I find them unhelpful and often in opposition to fair, open minded positions, which are ideally the positions we should all strive for.
Edit: Noticed an article that covered this phenomenon in more technical detail than me here, check it out! https://www.datagubbe.se/crt/
Ironically, then, that's exactly where a lot of CRT nostalgics go wrong.
Too many of them act like every pixel was designed specifically to look good on CRTs, and that playing them any other way is some kind of heresy. And this is where I have to step in and point out some big, gaping holes in their arguments.
Like I said before, it's certainly true that yes, artists of the time did have to draw for CRTs, because CRT displays were the only kinds of displays realistically available to most people. From this, it certainly also follows that artists who cared about how their work looked got it checked on a CRT TV if they were drawing for a console game.
The problem, however, is the pretentiousness in the attitude of most CRT nostalgics. While it's true that some artists, specifically the ones who really cared about their work, made alterations specifically to make their work match to their vision on a CRT screen, the fact of the matter is, most video game art is designed not to impress people with its artistry, but to be reusable and to "stick to the background", aka look good enough without being distracting.
Game artists didn't (and still don't) draw whatever they pleased for free. Video game development, even back then, especially back then, was heavily constrained by budgets, deadlines and technological limitations. So it follows that in fact, most assets were not lovingly crafted pixel by pixel to look good for this or that display, but rather had just enough effort put into them to be "good enough." Not only that, but given the limitations, they needed to focus their efforts onto specific assets, which unsurprisingly often ended up looking distinctly sharper and more detailed than other assets. Almost like that was their intention for them all along.
Given these facts, is it not folly to suggest that not playing old games with a CRT monitor or some sort of CRT filter "ruins" their graphics somehow? Especially when most of the time, the effect is only a subjective improvement, with lots of downsides for people who don't care about having a dark blurry screen covering everything. There's a reason the world moved away from CRTs, after all.
To be very clear, I have nothing against such filters existing, nothing against people who prefer playing their old games with such filters, and definitely nothing against people who like how such filters look. Aesthetics are innately very subjective, and there should ideally be choices for people to play games how they want. My complaint is mainly with certain overtly pretentious and staid attitudes, as I find them unhelpful and often in opposition to fair, open minded positions, which are ideally the positions we should all strive for.
Edit: Noticed an article that covered this phenomenon in more technical detail than me here, check it out! https://www.datagubbe.se/crt/
Comments
Post a Comment