Search Results
7/19/2025, 2:35:48 AM
>>105949867
i know exactly what he's talking about. he's talking about DOS games, which were common up to 1997, and which were mostly 320x200 (not always). 320x200 is 16:10 using square pixels, but they weren't displayed with square pixels. you'd think because they're displayed as 4:3 that he'd simply be wrong, but it gets more complicated than that, because many games don't account for the fact the pixels aren't square, like the art was drawn using square pixels as their editing software used square pixels. this means many games actually look more correct when displayed in 16:10 instead of how it actually was displayed back in the day.
like take pic related as an example, notice how the circles are correct with square pixels (16:10), even though nobody back then would have displayed it like this unless they deliberately adjusted their CRT's h-size to squash the picture
i know exactly what he's talking about. he's talking about DOS games, which were common up to 1997, and which were mostly 320x200 (not always). 320x200 is 16:10 using square pixels, but they weren't displayed with square pixels. you'd think because they're displayed as 4:3 that he'd simply be wrong, but it gets more complicated than that, because many games don't account for the fact the pixels aren't square, like the art was drawn using square pixels as their editing software used square pixels. this means many games actually look more correct when displayed in 16:10 instead of how it actually was displayed back in the day.
like take pic related as an example, notice how the circles are correct with square pixels (16:10), even though nobody back then would have displayed it like this unless they deliberately adjusted their CRT's h-size to squash the picture
Page 1