Again, why suffer so much playing at 320x320 res where the wording is barely readable(I emphasize barely) and a HUGE SS logo that takes up half your screen. I see no point.
On Jan 4, 3:59 pm, Espionage724 <[email protected]> wrote: > ah that was my bad (or chrome's bad), I clicked the link and it > hadhttp://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af207/boocomban/moh2010.png[/IMG] > (note the [/IMG] at the end) > > But wow thats a huge SS logo :p > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Kiki <[email protected]> wrote: > >http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af207/boocomban/moh2010.png > > > the image is still there, but somehow the thread separate the address > > into > >http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/ > > and > > af207/boocomban/moh2010.png > > > anyway, for me, it's not a "believe it or not" problem... > > I never doubt anyone for claiming that they can make the games (any > > kind of it) playable in such little resolution. > > > I myself can also make my games played in as low resolution as > > possible (or even better if they allow me to have custom size, so I > > can have smaller window size than the "smallest formal window size" > > given by the game system) if I want to. > > > ============================================== > > ~if the game allow such things, then so be it~ > > ============================================== > > > rather than "believe it or not", I'd rather want to know if it's > > "enjoyable enough or not" to have a modern PC shooting game converted > > to a "hanheld size and resolution" game > > > On Jan 4, 8:26 pm, Espionage724 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> image haz been removed or moved ;p > > > -- > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
