Vic
Savant
simping for graphics, pathetic
edit: he deleted his post lmao cuck
edit: he deleted his post lmao cuck
Last edited:
"pixel art" leaves me viscerally unmoved (though I can appreciate it from an aesthetic point of view).
There's a big difference between fag "Pixel art" every indie game has vs. An old game with graphical limitations but unique visuals & good art direction
Also 2+ decade different from Fallout to BG3 so weird examples you chose
Early 3D is Battlezone and Arcticfox:3D was well established by NWN's release in what 2002? Early 3D is ~94-98 IMO.
There can be two reasons for upgrading the screen resolution, one is increasing the pixel density and the other is to increase the screen area without decreasing the pixel density.I have two 1080p screens, a 1080p laptop, a 1080p TV, and I will never, ever, upgrade to 4K because that's just bullshit.
There's a point where your screen gets too big to view all of it at once. You want a screen that suits your viewing distance or you end up seeing a more detailed thumb nail rather than the whole picture.Personally I think the latter is really great for immersion (for first/third-person games) as it allows you to cover a larger portion of your field of view. And I also like being able to see larger parts of the map at once for 2D games. That's why I have a 38" 3840×1600 pixel screen which, while as many pixels wide as a "4K", only has slightly smaller pixels than your average 1080p screen - so essentially like two 1080p screens but without any bezel in between and a bit more height. How well this works out depends on the game of course (many developers seem to have problems understanding the concept of Hor+) but worse case I just let the game itself run at a lower resolution.
simping for graphics, pathetic
edit: he deleted his post lmao cuck