As a Sega Genesis gamer, do you care about stretched aspect ratio?

[Pyron]

Also anything rectangular likely has no hope because those graphics are usually designed to be aligned to tile boundaries (and the tiles are not square), so those probably shouldn't be considered when determining that (unlike circular shapes).

I mean, that kind of sensationalism is what generated sales :​v

EDIT: reminds me, yesterday I was reading some Japanese magazine from 1992 and at some point it talks about Final Fight CD and they spend a good chunk of the space to taking a jab at the SNES version lacking Guy, a whole stage and 2P mode (all of which are present in the Sega CD version). Including a screenshot showing all three things at the same time (Guy in the missing stage, and the 2P HUD bar is visible)..

I think it is very common to both system back in 90's, magazines tries uses any type of nonsense to defend their favorite brand..

It's funny because in the 90's it was the first time I saw that stupid console comparison spec, the same as the angry video game nerd used in your video.
For you to see that some things never change.

[Pyron]

That's why, as CkRtech says, the circle test should not always be the defining test. For example, designers might have drawn character sprites on the skinnier side knowing they would be distorted, while background artists might not have taken 4:3 into account.

If you look at your example of monster world, we can notice that the hud fonts and art are drawed to look correct on TV
sadly sprites and backgrounds thay didn't take the same care, so in the same game we can see the two aprouchs

[Firebrandx]

If you look at your example of monster world, we can notice that the hud fonts and art are drawed to look correct on TV
sadly sprites and backgrounds thay didn't take the same care, so in the same game we can see the two aprouchs

It's the result of using tiled graphic cells in 8x8 blocks (or 16x16), and the artist conserves memory by making artwork fit within those tile constraints. We see the same thing on games like SMW for the SNES, while other games like Chrono Trigger take the time to adjust for signal AR (not 4:3 AR as often is mistaken for aspect correction). Here's my classic example of when people mistake "4:3 AR" for signal AR:



In any case on the Genesis, I prefer 320x224 games to use square pixels, and 256x224 games to use the proper correction formula of 256 * 8/7. Nowhere at any time should "4:3" be used as proper CRT aspect correction.

[Sik]

Reminds me, the exact aspect ratio is also different between NTSC and PAL, right? (which is why the latter shows border area at the top and bottom unless you extend the vertical resolution to cover up the extra lines)

[Allard]

Saying that doesn't make it a reality, unfortunately. As has already been mentioned (watch OP's videos), many, if not most, of the 256x224 console games did not have correctly adjusted art for 4:3.

See:



On the Genesis, it's entirely possible that designers weren't aware that the game was going to be 256x224, or just didn't have the know-how or care to factor it in. Regardless, most of the Genesis's 256x224 games did NOT have their art correctly adjusted for 4:3.

Capcom, on the other hand, was clearly on top of things with the CPS games.

Hence why I said "any developer worth their salt". Not all of them did it. But the smart ones did.

[Stifu]

Hence why I said "any developer worth their salt". Not all of them did it. But the smart ones did.

Is it actually worth it, though? Couldn't the time and money required to tweak all graphics be better spent elsewhere? In my opinion, developers worth their salt would have their priorities in order, which would not include worrying about minor aspect ratio issues almost no players notice. Just my 2 grains of salt.

[Gryson]

Hence why I said "any developer worth their salt". Not all of them did it. But the smart ones did.

So which smart developers on the Sega Genesis did? Aside from the Sonic bonus stage. Please name some.

Because Climax, Sonic Software, Westone, Data East, Hudson Soft, and many more did not. Not to mention Nintendo and Capcom on the SNES...

I guess they aren't "worth their salt".

Or, you know, there are many valid reasons (mentioned in this very thread) why they chose to not adjust the aspect ratio of the games.

[Black_Tiger]

Is it actually worth it, though? Couldn't the time and money required to tweak all graphics be better spent elsewhere? In my opinion, developers worth their salt would have their priorities in order, which would not include worrying about minor aspect ratio issues almost no players notice. Just my 2 grains of salt.

Considering that 256 pixel wide games without perfect aspect ratio were celebrated for their visuals at the time and have remained an iconic visual style of their own, no it wouldn't have been worth it.

With that said, it is still something I try to shoot for in projects I work on, but it is much more work than it sounds and adds a complex layer of design to tile based assets and eats up sprite babdwidth.

[Allard]

So which smart developers on the Sega Genesis did? Aside from the Sonic bonus stage. Please name some.

Because Climax, Sonic Software, Westone, Data East, Hudson Soft, and many more did not. Not to mention Nintendo and Capcom on the SNES...

I guess they aren't "worth their salt".

Or, you know, there are many valid reasons (mentioned in this very thread) why they chose to not adjust the aspect ratio of the games.

Climax, Sonic Software, Westone - don't remember ever playing their games.
Data East - not very fond of theirs.
Nintendo - abhorrent.
Capcom - well, they are not bad, of course they aren't, but they definitely could go lazy with their port jobs.

Can you do a quick sum-up for those valid reasons then, if I don't feel like scouring the thread for them?

[Gryson]

Climax, Sonic Software, Westone - don't remember ever playing their games.

You haven't played Shining Force, Shining in the Darkness, Wonder Boy?!

Data East - not very fond of theirs.
Nintendo - abhorrent.
Capcom - well, they are not bad, of course they aren't, but they definitely could go lazy with their port jobs.

Can you do a quick sum-up for those valid reasons then, if I don't feel like scouring the thread for them?

1) Tiled graphics are square
2) Cost/benefit imbalance - takes more effort to do well and most people never noticed back in the day

[retronostalgia]

It's the result of using tiled graphic cells in 8x8 blocks (or 16x16), and the artist conserves memory by making artwork fit within those tile constraints. We see the same thing on games like SMW for the SNES, while other games like Chrono Trigger take the time to adjust for signal AR (not 4:3 AR as often is mistaken for aspect correction). Here's my classic example of when people mistake "4:3 AR" for signal AR:

In any case on the Genesis, I prefer 320x224 games to use square pixels, and 256x224 games to use the proper correction formula of 256 * 8/7. Nowhere at any time should "4:3" be used as proper CRT aspect correction.

I had always assumed that NES/SNES pixels were 5:4 and Genesis ones were square and it was shocking to learn that the real numbers are 8:7 for the NES/SNES... and 32:35 for the Genesis!

https://pineight.com/mw/index.php?title=Dot_clock_rates

(I'd be very curious if there's similar PAL info assembled anywhere...)

[Firebrandx]

I had always assumed that NES/SNES pixels were 5:4 and Genesis ones were square and it was shocking to learn that the real numbers are 8:7 for the NES/SNES... and 32:35 for the Genesis!

You're confusing 320 mode there on the Genesis. If you look at the entry for 8:7 in that link you provided, it lists the Genesis 256 mode along with the NES and SNES.

[retronostalgia]

You're confusing 320 mode there on the Genesis. If you look at the entry for 8:7 in that link you provided, it lists the Genesis 256 mode along with the NES and SNES.

Right, I understand that the H32 mode on the Genesis is the same as the NES/SNES. But I thought that the pixel aspect ratio in H40 mode was exactly 1:1, and it was surprising to learn that it's not. I wonder why they made that decision...

[Sik]

Probably because their arcades were generally 320px wide… as well as a lot of other systems out there (which in many cases did have 1:1 pixels, as they weren't bound to TV signal restrictions). In particular System 16, which they were trying to match. It just wasn't the norm on consoles yet.

EDIT: forgot, did PC Engine support a 320px wide mode?

[Stifu]

EDIT: forgot, did PC Engine support a 320px wide mode?

The French Wikipedia page says yes.