I prefer to use actual period hardware for both computer games and console games. I was firmly in the CRT camp for consoles, but now don't mind 240p console gaming though a nice upscaler connected to a good OLED TV. Computers are another matter though, and I will only play C64/Atari/Apple/Amiga plugged into a CRT monitor/TV, and find 320x200 DOS games to look wrong on anything but a VGA monitor. It's not so much the blurry scaling on LCD that bothers me (you can get around this to some degree using integer scaling, though this does not work particularly well for 320x200), but that all colors seem to have uniform brightness on an LCD versus a CRT TV or monitor. It's definitely less noticeable on a VGA monitor, but it's there for sure.

this is always an interesting subject

in order for the experience of playing a game to feel similar to playing the original it needs a very high proportion of similar characteristics and that includes the constraints and features of the tech of the era

Sometimes so many constraints and features are removed or changed that it no longer feels like the same game - and for different people these cut off points are set differently

For instance I'm fine with the 'hi def' pack for HL but a remake in the latest unreal engine, while no doubt impressive, just wouldn't feel like HL anymore. Playing an old console game in an emulator feels real enough, even if it isn't strictly the same as actual hardware, but a remake using new tech or some dramatically altered appearance or sound due to some clever upscaling etc wouldn't feel the same

vetz wrote on 2020-10-30, 12:22:

If I first play those games on a newer retro system (Pentium 4) I'm just thinking I might as well play them on my modern Win10 machine.

i had this feeling recently but there's still fun and interest for me playing on older PCs. i would probably be playing most games on a modern pc if i only bought one retro pc (a dos/win98 machine)... but i went overboard. now I have 6 systems that are sort-of period correct but set apart 2/3 years from each other in terms of the main parts. i'll play a game on the system that matches the hardware's age but if it doesnt run that well i'll try the next pc up. if it loses compatibility in one way or another i'll stick with what i started with. i kinda enjoy finding what system is the most optimal for the game at the highest res/gfx settings and maintaining stability and sound compatibility.

back in the day i only got to play half-life 4 years after it came out - theres no way i'd play it on a P2, knowing how nice it is at high res/high fps.

newtmonkey wrote on 2020-11-02, 07:51:

It's not so much the blurry scaling on LCD that bothers me (you can get around this to some degree using integer scaling, though this does not work particularly well for 320x200)

Huh? 320x200 can be perfectly integer scaled to 1600x1200 (which will display 1:1 on a 1920x1200 monitor).

Perfect integer scaling is overrated anyway. You'll get just as good results with a 3840x2160 monitor, integer scaling to the highest possible factor and doing interpolated scaling the rest of the way.

ZellSF wrote on 2020-11-02, 17:56:

newtmonkey wrote on 2020-11-02, 07:51:

It's not so much the blurry scaling on LCD that bothers me (you can get around this to some degree using integer scaling, though this does not work particularly well for 320x200)

Huh? 320x200 can be perfectly integer scaled to 1600x1200 (which will display 1:1 on a 1920x1200 monitor).

Perfect integer scaling is overrated anyway. You'll get just as good results with a 3840x2160 monitor, integer scaling to the highest possible factor and doing interpolated scaling the rest of the way.

Do you mean 320x240 or non square pixels?
I'm still learning but I guess you would need a 16:10 1920x1200 or 3840x2400 monitor with 1:1 to pixel mapping and aspect control to cover both resolutions.
Soliving the sometimes non square pixel resolutions and covering these resolutions at 70hz is tricky.

IBM T221 lends itself well.
Maybe some old 1920x1200 hp/dells and newer 4ks could work?

I guess the ideal LCD monitor should cover:
320x200 16:10 Civilization
320x200 4:3 X-wing
320x240 4:3 Epic Pinball
No 320x200 -> 320x240 pre integer scaling

*Edited still learning about DOS on LCDs

Hanamichi wrote on 2020-11-02, 19:17:

Do you mean 320x240? You would need a 16:10 1920x1200 or 3840x2400 monitor with 1:1 to pixel mapping to cover both resolutions. […]
Show full quote

ZellSF wrote on 2020-11-02, 17:56:

newtmonkey wrote on 2020-11-02, 07:51:

It's not so much the blurry scaling on LCD that bothers me (you can get around this to some degree using integer scaling, though this does not work particularly well for 320x200)

Huh? 320x200 can be perfectly integer scaled to 1600x1200 (which will display 1:1 on a 1920x1200 monitor).

Perfect integer scaling is overrated anyway. You'll get just as good results with a 3840x2160 monitor, integer scaling to the highest possible factor and doing interpolated scaling the rest of the way.

Do you mean 320x240?
You would need a 16:10 1920x1200 or 3840x2400 monitor with 1:1 to pixel mapping to cover both resolutions.
Soliving the non square pixel resolutio is tricky.

I have no idea what you're on about.

If you scale 320 * 5 on the horizontal axis, and 200 * 6 on the vertical axis, integer scales on both axis, you have 1600x1200, a 4:3 resolution, which is what 320x200 is supposed to be. It is the solution to the non-square pixel resolution of 320x200.

And I did say you needed a 1920x1200 display. A 1600x1200 display would obviously work too.

ZellSF wrote on 2020-11-02, 19:36:

I have no idea what you're on about. […]
Show full quote

Hanamichi wrote on 2020-11-02, 19:17:

Do you mean 320x240? You would need a 16:10 1920x1200 or 3840x2400 monitor with 1:1 to pixel mapping to cover both resolutions. […]
Show full quote

ZellSF wrote on 2020-11-02, 17:56:

Huh? 320x200 can be perfectly integer scaled to 1600x1200 (which will display 1:1 on a 1920x1200 monitor).

Perfect integer scaling is overrated anyway. You'll get just as good results with a 3840x2160 monitor, integer scaling to the highest possible factor and doing interpolated scaling the rest of the way.

Do you mean 320x240?
You would need a 16:10 1920x1200 or 3840x2400 monitor with 1:1 to pixel mapping to cover both resolutions.
Soliving the non square pixel resolutio is tricky.

I have no idea what you're on about.

If you scale 320 * 5 on the horizontal axis, and 200 * 6 on the vertical axis, integer scales on both axis, you have 1600x1200, a 4:3 resolution, which is what 320x200 is supposed to be. It is the solution to the non-square pixel resolution of 320x200.

And I did say you needed a 1920x1200 display. A 1600x1200 display would obviously work too.

My bad I was confused as i posted that. Some games are 320x200 with square pixels such as Civilization. Giving 1620x1000, how does the monitor cope?

Hanamichi wrote on 2020-11-02, 19:57:

ZellSF wrote on 2020-11-02, 19:36:

I have no idea what you're on about. […]
Show full quote

Hanamichi wrote on 2020-11-02, 19:17:

Do you mean 320x240?
You would need a 16:10 1920x1200 or 3840x2400 monitor with 1:1 to pixel mapping to cover both resolutions.
Soliving the non square pixel resolutio is tricky.

I have no idea what you're on about.

If you scale 320 * 5 on the horizontal axis, and 200 * 6 on the vertical axis, integer scales on both axis, you have 1600x1200, a 4:3 resolution, which is what 320x200 is supposed to be. It is the solution to the non-square pixel resolution of 320x200.

And I did say you needed a 1920x1200 display. A 1600x1200 display would obviously work too.

My bad I was confused as i posted that. Some games are 320x200 with square pixels such as Civilization. Giving 1620x1000, how does the monitor cope?

Monitors (generally) don't do integer scaling.

Why do you think Civilization uses square pixels? DOSBox doesn't seem to agree.

ZellSF wrote on 2020-11-02, 20:06:

Hanamichi wrote on 2020-11-02, 19:57:

ZellSF wrote on 2020-11-02, 19:36:

I have no idea what you're on about.

If you scale 320 * 5 on the horizontal axis, and 200 * 6 on the vertical axis, integer scales on both axis, you have 1600x1200, a 4:3 resolution, which is what 320x200 is supposed to be. It is the solution to the non-square pixel resolution of 320x200.

And I did say you needed a 1920x1200 display. A 1600x1200 display would obviously work too.

My bad I was confused as i posted that. Some games are 320x200 with square pixels such as Civilization. Giving 1620x1000, how does the monitor cope?

Monitors (generally) don't do integer scaling.

Why do you think Civilization uses square pixels? DOSBox doesn't seem to agree.

Hmm so even some native 1920x1200/1600x1200 monitors don't integer scale? Bummer

That's one example as shown here http://dewt.org/ there are others

On topic some argue that the original C&C assets have not been scaled properly in the remaster.

It does seem early DOS strategy, shmup and 2D adventure games are among those 16:10 320x200 games.
Perhaps the engine developers chose not to tackle the problem of scaling by 1.2 on the Y axis.

DOS games feel right on my P200MMX and I almost exclusively play them there. But once you get into Windows games, I usually prefer to play them on a modern system with GOG installers. There have only been a few exceptions:
Quake II I played on a nearly-period-correct P2-400/V2 SLI system and loved the hell out of it on that platform.
Half-Life played on a P3-933/V2 SLI platform and again, it played beautifully.
RtCW played on a P3-933/GF3 Ti200 system that ran great with that game.

I'm not sure what it is about those games, but they felt *right* on those platforms. I've played other games from that era (Unreal, System Shock 2, Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, Wizardry 😎 on my modern system and had no interest in playing them on a retro PC. Maybe it was that most of them had modern mods that made them more appealing on a modern system, or maybe I was just tired of jumping to a different PC to play them. Not sure, but I think part of it is Windows games look normal on LCD displays while DOS games do not. And I'm not hooking up a CRT to my modern system! 🤣.

Eventually life will give you lemons and you'll reach a turning point of shoveling away hobby priorities. I've got plenty of dusty period correct hardware (including 90s CRTs, 90s speakers, 90s IDE HDDs, 90s PSUs) I don't play on anymore - and can't possibly set back up again. (currently) 🙁

There's a silver lining though. The computer negligence drove me to write 3dfx filters for PCem, and also mess with TV CRT shaders making plenty of VGA CRT presets that evoke enough about my old computers to me. I believe the last time I got to power on the old machines thoroughly was to do recording/studies of floppy drives for proposed drive noise emulation as an attempt to recapture my immersion (I was also studying sound programming and techniques like HRTF at the time)

Realistically, if a game runs well on my modern machine, that's how I prefer to play it. That machine is quiet, and is already hooked up to my nice monitor, speakers, keyboard, mouse. That convenience is hard to give up. It also allows to crank up the eye candy like AA, AF, high resolutions, while keeping smooth framerate.

I don't care much for period correct hardware, in fact I hated beige cases, whiny hard drives, and floppy disks even when they were mainstream. Also back then I often ran into performance limitations and wished for faster hardware.

But I do like to tinker with hardware, especially if it's something I didn't have back then. I missed out on the whole 3dfx era of PC games, so I built a win98 rig specifically for that. In a black case, with quiet 120mm fans.

The funny thing is that it sometimes takes me years to finish a game, simply because something else catches my interest. I started playing Unreal Gold on my old P3 laptop with a Rage Pro, and only beat the game over a decade later on a Core i7 and a DX11 Radeon. Started Deus Ex on a Athlon XP with a Radeon 9000pro, and finished it... well, I still have a savefile with about 90% progress somewhere. But last I played it, I was already on a GF 8800gt, and ennjoying the SSAA eye candy. So it's hard to pin down certain games to certain period hardware.

Then there are some classic favorites like NOLF, RTCW, Max Payne and Duke3d, which I already played through several times over the last two decades using a wide variety of hardware, and would enjoy another playthrough sometime soon. If it runs on my modern machine, then all the better.

It's a bit of both. I run games with a native HW as much as possible, but I do use modern mice, keyboards and speakers when available. The ones we used in the late 90's and early 00's are after all pretty bad compared to what we have now. Problem with that comes with this approach is I have a dozen period correct machines with small tweaks to make them appear different (VLB, sound cards, MIDI etc.) and suit every possible need, but in the end I could probably do with much less if I just used slow down utilities and software emulation to bridge the gab between builds. However, to me it feels like cheating and is the same as using an emulator to play a game.

Hanamichi wrote on 2020-11-02, 20:54:

ZellSF wrote on 2020-11-02, 20:06:

Hanamichi wrote on 2020-11-02, 19:57:

My bad I was confused as i posted that. Some games are 320x200 with square pixels such as Civilization. Giving 1620x1000, how does the monitor cope?

Monitors (generally) don't do integer scaling.

Why do you think Civilization uses square pixels? DOSBox doesn't seem to agree.

That's one example as shown here http://dewt.org/ there are others

Sure planets are round, but that the tiles are supposed to be square is an assumption. So that's still only 1 game asset.

Hanamichi wrote on 2020-11-02, 20:54:

It does seem early DOS strategy, shmup and 2D adventure games are among those 16:10 320x200 games.
Perhaps the engine developers chose not to tackle the problem of scaling by 1.2 on the Y axis.

Games are refined and tested multiple times. How it's supposed to look was definitely decided on, not ignored. If you think a game looks better at 16:10 it's usually going to be your preference, and not what the game is developed for.