Quote:
Originally Posted by Friar
But if I was to, say, emulate a game on my PC, it wouldn't look bad. In fact, as a friend showed me once, the games often look much better. He was running Mario 64 in HD. Given that HD resolutions most certainly weren't programmed into the original game, that upscaling was done by the Emulation software.
|
The up-scaling is indeed done by the emulation software, but it does that on a case by case basis. Super Mario 64 is the best or worst example you could give (depending on what you want to show) for the up-scaling, because all N64 emulators are optimized for that particular game, so saying that THAT runs great in HD doesn't mean much. Take a fairly unknown game, and see how that runs in HD.
Of course you can probably run a game and just tell it that the screen is now larger, and it might give you results, but due to limitations, the assumption that these games will never run on differently sized screens anyway and the attempt to get the most out of the hardware, there is also hard coded shading etc. in this which would lead to ugly results for a lot of games.
From what I heard, e.g. Wind Waker on the GameCube uses hard-coded pixel for pixel shading for the awesome depth-of-field effect, which would result in a visible grid if you'd simply up-scale it.
So pretty much the only choice they have is to up-scale the final image, or have black bars, or write an emulator that fixes these issues for every single game that ever existed on the DS, and that's in many ways not worth the effort.
You could also read this post as an argument why PC games are technically superior to console games, because those ARE designed with such things in mind, at least if programmed well.
PS:
A similar argument goes for the savestate problem you mentioned. And another reason is that a company like Nintendo wants to do their things professional and not just hack stuff in their games, which could lead to potential errors or security leaks for the sake of satisfying a few people.