How were graphics like this even possible in 1985?
>>12736242they weren't, that's a 2003 fceux tier pallette
There’s something appealing about the lack of outlines in these early NES games
It wasn't really that good of graphics, even of the time.
>>12736268yeah, the actual state of the art of video game graphics in 1985 was in the arcades, which were already approaching early 16-bit quality
>>12736242Blew me away the first time i saw it.
>1024x960They weren't
>>12736271Were they '16-bit quality' because they were running on 16-bit hardware?
>>12736271Space Harrier would have amazing to witness in 1985. This was the true state of the art graphics of the time
>>12736242Clever memory tricks to compress the size of the game meant they'd have more available memory for nice sprites.As an example with mario specifically the level wasn't stored in memory, instead they made a world generator and saved the seed in memory to save precious kilobytes. Also they reused assets like no ones business. The cloud and the bush are just different coloured versions of the same sprite
>>12736309>the micronics port
>>12736242fun fact, your image takes more space on your hard drive than the game's actual graphics files really makes you think
The same way these were possible in the Hellensistic Period.
>>12736246It looks that bright on most CRTs unless your caps are fucked.
>>12738143That's just not true.But of course, it famously varies between displays. So I'm sure it could have on yours.
>>12736242The Famicom is 1983 hardware, and the original Super Mario Bros uses a 40KB cartridge with no mapper. It's pretty much the pinnacle of what the stock Famicom hardware can do, not counting homebrew developments.
