r3tr0gam3r1337 said:
seams you cant read or that you did not understand the question 'are you' is not the same as 'you are', you assumed i name called which i did not and ill answer you rather stupid argument with this, why would i emulate any console to its actual spec resolution hz fps ect when using a HD display and a PC costing £1000 is completly pointless, the point we are trying to get across is that with a PC you can not only emulate but improve the games being emulates substantually with the latest PC hardware. playing old games is great fun but improving to look and feel can some times make the experience better, for example GT1 on the ps1 back in 98 was a stunning looking game but by todays standards on even running it on the ps3 it still looks messy and pixilated, boosting the ps1 graphics by upping the res makes the game playable again with the added bonus of higher resolutions and all the bonuses modern graphics cards can provide, if you want to play games at the origonal settings then just play them on the original console as that defeats the point of emulation on the PC. now last word warrior is not how you discribed it, it is some one who no matter what has to have the last word hence last word warrior and i know you will replay hence you having the last word lol. |
| r3tr0gam3r1337 said:
the argument isnt about replacing the real thing more about improving over the real thing. such things are happening all the time for example Halo 1 being remasterd is much like what someone would be doing if emulating an old game, or like running xbox original games on the 360 with upscaled graphics using the 360's power, even the ps3 with the early released console being backwads compatable made existing ps2 games run at 1080i when the default res was 576i. i dont see what the problem is with emulating games and making improvments on them, it seams to be a difference of opinion, mine being a personal opinion rather than the general opinon. |
If that was meant to be a question, then why in the hell didn't you use a question mark? How else is a question supposed to be interpreted otherwise. Nevertheless, I'll let you go with that one.
I find this point rather humorous. For starters, you refuse to take my advice and read up on game console mechanics, so you're only displaying your idiocy to the rest of the thread and let me tell you why. Unlike many PC games, console games use a technique where the mechanics are updated in exact sync with the framerate of the screen. So a sprite or polygon velocity is measured by displacement per cycle, as opposed to displacement per second. This is where you're making your fundamental mistake here. An engine displaying an object with a fixed displacement will be affected if the cycle time (ie the screen refresh. Keep this in mind. It's 1:1 with game consoles) changes from it's intended frequency of 29.97Hz. You see how stupid you point is now? Go ahead and run your game at 150fps. It's rather wasteful, considering you get 5 frames exactly the same before the refresh timer is invoked (which as we've discussed before, runs slightly faster than the original hardware intended. You get an actual increase in speed (NOT refresh rate, so don't go there) of the game. This is why game record companies refuse to acknowledge records set on emulators, because it provides an advantage of an extra cycle in the game every 33.3 seconds.
I don't know what you plan to achieve with this "last word warrior" bullshit. Are you too afraid of replies and try to instil some kind of fear back in an attempt to not receive one? It's not working. As long as you keep spewing ridiculous statements, you're going to get those statements chopped down.
