keenmaster486 wrote:

Something occurred to me a few minutes ago: video resolutions based on 320x200 (640x400, 1280x800, 1600x1000, etc) correspond al […]
Show full quote

Something occurred to me a few minutes ago: video resolutions based on 320x200 (640x400, 1280x800, 1600x1000, etc) correspond almost exactly to the "golden rectangle" ratio of 1:1.618.
The golden rectangle is held to be the ratio most pleasing to the eye.
Maybe this is why I enjoy EGA/VGA DOS games much more when they run at their native 320x200 resolution with square pixels!
Does anyone else feel the same way?

Also:
see the Wikipedia article

I am not sure I agree with the statement about the golden ratio is the "most pleasing" to the eye. It certainly is one of many things that is pleasing to the eye. But, there are many other things that can be considered pleasing to the eye that don't follow that ratio. Many people prefer widescreen resolutions to the old traditional 4:3 so it's really just subjective. For me personally it's all about what is most conducive for the game as it was designed or what makes most sense for the gameplay.

You probably enjoy games in their native resolutions because they just weren't designed to be viewed any other way.

keenmaster486 wrote:

Something occurred to me a few minutes ago: video resolutions based on 320x200 (640x400, 1280x800, 1600x1000, etc) correspond al […]
Show full quote

Something occurred to me a few minutes ago: video resolutions based on 320x200 (640x400, 1280x800, 1600x1000, etc) correspond almost exactly to the "golden rectangle" ratio of 1:1.618.
The golden rectangle is held to be the ratio most pleasing to the eye.
Maybe this is why I enjoy EGA/VGA DOS games much more when they run at their native 320x200 resolution with square pixels!
Does anyone else feel the same way?

Also:
see the Wikipedia article

In fact, if you are viewing 320x200 or 640x400 games with square pixels you are viewing them distorted, because they were designed using rectangular pixels and the final aspect-ratio should be 4:3.

Rhuwyn wrote:

You probably enjoy games in their native resolutions because they just weren't designed to be viewed any other way.

Is this true? What I've heard is that those games were programmed using CRT monitors that went 4:3 ratio no matter what.

shiva2004 wrote:

In fact, if you are viewing 320x200 or 640x400 games with square pixels you are viewing them distorted, because they were designed using rectangular pixels and the final aspect-ratio should be 4:3.

This is exactly how I always viewed them too, that is until recently when I discovered that the aspect ratio was different with square pixels. I found the games much more pleasing to the eye when I made the aspect ratio 16:10. But of course that's completely subjective.

http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Aspect_ratio

320x200 is meant to be displayed in 4:3 with non-square pixels, at least on Doom. While I understand some artists didn't take this into account, widescreen monitors were basically non-existent in the days of DOS unless you count weird nonstandard laptop displays, so therefore displaying 320x200 games with square pixels isn't accurate.