This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Article and RARE are listing an incorrect resolution
The article and RARE's latest video on the making of Perfect Dark says the game's Hi Res mode runs in 480i, but that's incorrect. First of all, several RARE staff interview articles in the past 10 years have mentioned the hi-resolution mode, but they have never stated how high it actually is. In RARE's latest 'Making of Perfect Dark' video, Ken Lobb says the game runs in 480i, but here's the deal: Ken Lobb did not work on the game as anything related to development (he's listed as "thanks to"). If he thinks the game's 480i, then he's basing it on hearsay. The final nail on this coffin is that when you run the game on an emulator, enable hi-res mode and take a screenshot directly from the framebuffer (using angrylion's pixel accurate plugin), the game's resolution is 640x218, which is NOT 480i (640x480). It was normal for games from the Playstation/Nintendo 64 era to have quasi-high horizontal or vertical resolutions, so instead of having full Hi-Res (640x480), they had quasi-hi res (640x224 or 320x480, and the such). So to avoid any edit wars, could someone else back me up on this? I already changed the info, though, but hopefully I get some support in case people decide to revert the changes. ReyVGM (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to add a few more points. The copyright & title screen run at 574x474, but the actual gameplay only goes up as high as 640x218. In normal mode, the resolution is 320x218; in hi-res mode the resolution is 640x218. Here are some screenshots: normal res http://i.imgur.com/9HFMekB.png, hi-res http://i.imgur.com/zWCZzTi.png. And one last clarification: these resolution woes cannot be experienced by playing on an actual CRT because TVs of the era stretched all images to 640x480 regardless of the video-feed resolution. But since we are discussing the game's internal resolution, and not what TVs did, then 480i is not correct. ReyVGM (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe Lobb was actually meaning 640x218; 480i can mean different things depending on the context. In any case, let's just avoid numbers to avoid confusion. --Niwi3 (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, avoiding numbers is best, that's why I didn't even replace it with the correct res. ReyVGM (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Reasons why I think there needs to be a separate article for the remake:
The Perfect Dark article is structured in a rather funky way that is, in one word, unclear. Why is the "Xbox Live Arcade" subsection buried in the "Release and Sales" section, when it talks about development and gameplay features? This kind of information should be with development and gameplay respectively, and establishing context earlier.
Most sections only provide information about the N64 game and some are even exclusive to it, such as Game engine.
The reception section is decent but the XBLA version should have its own Template:VG Reviews template.
The XBLA version has its own box art and should be hosted to illustrate the product.
The remake is different: the gameplay is slightly different (control of stylus, online features, achievements...), it should also have its own development section as it was not developed by Rare, there's even a patch that fixes some things.