r3tr0gam3r1337 said:
fordy said:
pezus said:
But the people who use the emulators don't just want to replicate the experience. They want better graphics and performance. All else about it not being perfectly the same is really not relevant, since if that's what you wanted you would just play the original console.
|
In that case, they are not emulators. I don't think you quite understand how assumptions put into code directly translate to "better" when the game wasn't designed for such a task. What game developers want in a sprite or polygon cannot be replicated "better" in all instances. Sometimes it can appear better, but other times it's just going down a path where assumptions skew on the developer's idea of how the game should be. This is why the theoretic process of emulation stops at the logical process of how the game is interpreted EXACTLY like the original, and not makes assumptions, or jumps to conclusions. What can be an improvement in framerate in some games totally fucks up the framerate in others that are perhaps deliberately limited by the original hardware.
Look back at the original argument. There was an argument trying to be made that PCs are better than consoles because of emulation. My point is that emulation can NEVER fully replace the original consoles. Why do you think that Video game record keepers do not allow emulators to be used to set records? I'll give you a hint....29.97Hz vs 30Hz.
|
are you a last word warrior!
|
Are you one who cannot find a valid argument to the above points mentioned, and has to resort to name calling?
I've already stated WHY emulation will never fully replace consoles, and it seems videogame record keepers agree with me. The only defense to that is calling me a 'last word warrior'? Let me give you the definition of that. A last word warrior is one who replies even IF they don't have relevant points to say. I put it to you that your own post, being as irrelevant as it is, makes you what you accuse me of being...
