yea true, even I have limitations lol (lowest rez ill go is 640x480 with some detail)
But yea a huge SS logo and unreadable text is meh.. On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Namige <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
