This is a rather long post, but hopefully it will clear things up
.
In defense of RF/compositeI think it's funny how some people say RF/Composite/S-video is OK but not RGB. Personally I'd put S-video closer to RGB than to Composite. It is much cleaner, and you only get a little bit of color bleed (usually in the reds). With my Saturn and SNES it can be pretty difficult to tell the difference between S-video and RGB unless you know exactly what to look for (the hearts in Castlevania IV no longer smear, etc).
Nintendo released a S-video cable for SNES, that is why S-video is included in my list of pre-32-bit consoles. It is the exception, as far as stock hardware goes on pre- 32-bit consoles...
1. How I PlayI guess I wasn't clear enough in my prior posts: I prefer to play consoles without any modifications; I play them as they were originally manufactured for the masses. I also use the standard controllers (occasionally I'll use additional first- or third- party controllers, but 99% of the time I use the standard pads). So, even though I think the Genesis 3-button controllers are less-than-mediocre, I still use them (and they have grown on me, I must admit, even if they remain my least favorite). I'm not the biggest fan of the SMS controllers, either (due to the awkward d-pad) but I have bigger complaints with the older joysticks (Atari 7800) ...
I don't have an A/V switch box, so I only have 2-3 consoles hooked up to my TV at any given time. As a result, I actually use RF because it acts as a third input (I only have two composite inputs on my TV).
Now, I started using RF out of necessity years ago... and I never thought I'd keep using it... but I have! I should point out that I always have some sort of "oldie" console hooked up (i.e. Colecovision, Intellivision, Atari 2600/5200/7800) and sometimes I'll pull out other stuff... so I'm not
that crazy.
2. Why I Play Like ThisBelieve it or not, I can afford to buy a fancier TV, and I can also afford to get my consoles modded if I chose to do so. I don't have tons of money budgeted for my hobbies, but I could have RGB if I wanted.
But I don't want RGB or component. Joe thought that maybe this was due to nostalgia:
I think the key thing here is nostalgia. You remember playing the games with shimmering, smeared video, etc and it helps you feel more nostalgic when those things are present. That's gotta be it.
I can tell you that my preferences have absolutely nothing to do with nostalgia and everything to do with approaching video games as living cultural artifacts. The cultural / historical context of video games (and computers) is fascinating to me. I enjoy reading old computer publications, I write goofy programs in BASIC for Apple ][ and C64 and countless other dorky things.
Basically, I approach video games as both a form of entertainment
and as a field with a rich history that should be explored, experienced, even studied. I know I'm a dork, but I don't care.
I think video games are a legitimate art form (highly commercialized and often low-brow, but yes, an art), etc. etc.
Now, nostalgia can be defined various ways, but it boils down to a "longing for the past, often an idealized, unrealistic past."
I'm not motivated by nostalgia but by a desire to understand the history of creating, marketing, consuming and playing video games.
And, being the dork that I am, I approach this like an archeologist or historian would: I want to experience consoles as the masses did. Hence no hardware modifications, standard controllers, old-skool televisions, etc.
But wait, there's more!
3. Cleanest video signal vs. Historical accuracyRemember my "theory" of digital art? Here it is in a nutshell:
I am linking video game art to their respective mediums / canvasses. I am basically arguing that console hardware + display hardware are a crucial, historically important aspect of video game aesthetics.
We should be able to appreciate VG art, just as we appreciate artists for the materials they use and the media they work with ...
My entire point is to appreciate technical "inferiority" as an aspect of the art.
I suppose I should elaborate with some examples. Basically, I am saying that various
stock hardware (console + display) configurations = a medium. A "medium" simply refers to the "stuff" artistic work is made out of.
TG-16 / Duo / SMS / Genny / etc. + RF/Composite + standard TV = medium
SNES + RF/Composite/s-video + standardTV = medium
arcade / jamma / etc. + RGB + monitor = medium
(I'll refrain from listing computer configurations, but they are mediums as well... and some even supported RF!).
Now, often, we think about digital art in its purest form (i.e. what you'd see via RGB / component, or on the designer's computer workstation). This version of the art is often placed in highest esteem, since it is considered the purest, least adulterated form.
According to Joe & company, RGB / component best captures the essence of art. Accordingly, there is a strong desire to modify consoles and "unleash" the purity.
I am offering an alternative viewpoint, one that squarely challenges how we define the "purity" and "essence" of a video game.
I am suggesting that the "true" essence of a video game can be defined by how the manufacturers marketed it and the masses experienced it: with stock consoles, standard displays, etc.
If stock consoles and displays are the medium, then video game aesthetics can be appreciated and judged accordingly:
I am linking video game art to their respective mediums / canvasses. I am basically arguing that console hardware + display hardware are a crucial, historically important aspect of video game aesthetics.
We should be able to appreciate VG art, just as we appreciate artists for the materials they use and the media they work with ...
My entire point is to appreciate technical "inferiority" as an aspect of the art.
Technical "inferiority" is an important (dare I say
crucial) aspect of video game aesthetics! It is beautiful, despite, or rather due to, the "flaws"! It is what the masses experienced -- and thus the "true" history and culture of video games.
RF/composite is the best way to capture the "true" history of aesthetics for SMS, NES, TG-16, Genny, etc.
So, I am not anti-RGB, nor am I simply ignorant of RGB.
Also, I don't think RF/composite is unequivocally better than RGB.
Rather, I argue that RF/composite is *still* relevant today and always will be! (as far as certain consoles are concerned). -------------
Joe, I think you and I are both purists, but we define the purity differently.
You strive to unleash the RGB purity (beauty) that has been trapped inside stock consoles. You want to experience art in its contemporary context: newer "stock" technology.
I, on the other hand, strive to appreciate the purity (beauty) of RF / composite. That is, to experience art in its original context.
--------------
So do you folks understand where I'm coming from now? Or have I just made things more confusing? I should probably proof-read this, but I finished my coffee and now I have to get some chores done
.
EDIT:
* Arcade games are a different medium, with a different set of aesthetic standards.
* Keranu's example about playing original GB games on the original GB fits nicely into this discussion. I do the same thing as well (not just for the screen, but to hear the little speaker pumpin' out the tunes!)
* My apoligies to the folks in UK / Europe, but since NEC never officially marketed the PCE in your country, you are not representative of the Japanese / North American NTSC "masses." Your history is still very important and needs to be documented, especially the role played by the importers.
*