🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2/6/2014 6:03 AM, Xocyll wrote:
> Mike S. <Mik...@nowhere.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
> the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:
> 
>> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 09:24:24 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> There's a vast difference between 1024x768, native on a 17" CRT
>>> and the same resolution windowboxed on a 20" 1600x900 widescreen
>>> LCD (which is what I have, though it's by no means state of the
>>> art.) That windowboxed display is actually _smaller_ than on the
>>> 17".
>>> 
>>> That doesn't equal fun, it equals eyestrain and headaches - no
>>> thanks, no sale.
>>> 
>>> Xocyll
>> 
>> Doesn't this just mean there will be black bars displayed on my 
>> 1920x1080 display in full screen mode?  I am ok with that. But I
>> do agree that even a retro game made today should support modern
>> display resolutions.
> 
> Depends on your monitor and video card really, you could end up with 
> black bars on the sides, or the screen stretched, or the image
> centered in the middle - all depends on what the manufacturer
> implemented.
> 
> The real point is, with simple graphics like this series has, even 
> Integrated Intel Graphics could display that in full widescreen 
> resolutions without much issue since it's neither 3d nor real time.
> 
> I can only assume that the guy(s) behind it used an engine they did
> not develop, and that engine was made back when low res 4:3 was the 
> standard.

Are there any displays out there anymore that don't scale instead of
stretching to fit?

Does the demo look bad on your monitor, or do you just know it will?

Demo of Book I is huge, BTW, and is the first section of the game.

-mb