3 ms·

I never get this retro gaming stuff. If I really want to play an old game from my childhood I use an emulator that probably has some neat features that make the

I never get this retro gaming stuff. If I really want to play an old game from my childhood I use an emulator that probably has some neat features that make the experience better then it was back in the day and I do not need to buy any overpriced hardware. All the "modular" shit sounds like just a artificial sales tactic. Why not just build it with all the 90% of the possible ports needed or something that makes sense and sell some adapter for the rest rare 10% like 3 different slots for shit seems just overkill and just an excuse to sell more expensive stuff for "enthusiasts" who want to get everything possible. And its not even CRT, that would actually make sense. Size also way to small. Again I rather fire up an emulator and I have something better for $0.

glimshe 3y ago
The emulators can be pretty good, but for people looking for the nostalgia, it might not really cut it. It doesn't fully send you back to your childhood, so if you have money to spend on this, and are passionate about it, it actually makes sense to get the full experience. It's not too different from wanting to experience old music in vinyl rather than digital.
- MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
  Right. These Checkmate folks seem to be doing it the right way, IMO. The housing matches the look of old CRTs while adding new capabilities, and the pricing is practical. I spent the better half of my youth trying to make CRTs look as crisp as what we take for granted with LCDs. I have no desire to go back to those days (and no desire to lug my 32" CRT up and down stair cases). So to all retro enthusiasts: let's celebrate those older systems but let's also appreciate what we have. Old systems have never looked better than they do on modern screens.
- cool_scatter 3y ago
  As someone who does often play retro games on a CRT TV, this monitor wouldn't cut it either. Same reason I never understood those "retro consoles", even the official ones made by Nintendo/Sony. At the end of the day it's just a plastic shell made to look like the old thing around something new.
  - wharvle 3y ago
    The Nintendo ones are plug-in-and-start-playing, come with controllers as good as the originals (I can side-by-side them—the new ones are excellent reproductions) and that feel exactly the same, and have a UI that a kid can figure out and that you don't have to set up or configure yourself, at all. The SNES Classic in particular was one of the best deals in gaming I've ever seen. So much zero-hassle entertainment in one package, all ready to attach to a TV and go. No downloading, no updates, no horse-shit, it just plays like 30 amazing games providing hundreds of hours of entertainment for around $100, and you didn't have to do anything to make that happen (that you can do nerd-shit and add dozens more games to it is simply a bonus) Other retro consoles I've seen have kinda been shit, but the Nintendo ones are great. Not everybody wants to or knows how to screw around with computers in their spare time so they can play Mario. "But the Switch et c. can play many of those games, and more" True, however, 1) The original controllers are really nice to have for the games, especially on the NES where they're far easier to learn than even the SNES controller for very-young new gamers, and you can get them for the Switch, but that's an add-on and getting two of them costs about as much as a whole NES Classic did, 2) Maybe you have two TVs and you don't want to buy a second switch for price reasons, or perhaps because you'd rather one of the TVs be more chill so you don't have to police it as much for the kids, or whatever, and 3) Playing those games on the Switch costs a subscription—with the Classic consoles, you pay once and it's yours until it breaks.
    - cool_scatter 3y ago
      That's all fair, I definitely see the appeal (especially regarding the controllers, which is something third-party companies have struggled to get right for decades). They're a good way to play the games. But for me at least (and I've heard similar sentiments from others), a big part of the "retro experience" comes from playing on a real console and a CRT TV. Something about the built-in firmware and knowing it's basically just a raspberry pi under the hood puts me off the whole thing and I would rather just emulate on a PC because it's less hassle. But ultimately of course if you enjoy it then keep doing so!
      - wharvle 3y ago
- wharvle 3y ago
  A lot of console and arcade games up through roughly the first Playstation arguably look better on a CRT than with any amount of upscaling or smoothing or whatever, even without factoring in nostalgia. But of course we have shaders for that, now, that can get one pretty damn close and take up zero extra space in one's house.
  - redder23 3y ago
    What is your point? As I said that overpriced think is NOT CRT and I actually think the hype about is not justified. I do not own a CRT but I think they would cause eye strain and modern up-scaling and smoothing and all that stuff makes games look objectively better.
- creshal 3y ago
  But then you might as well get a real CRT to go along with your real consoles, and get the actual childhood experience of zero-lag inputs and CRT blur smoothing out the image. Why spend more money on an inferior experience? CRTs might be out of production, but there's still plenty floating on ebay.
oldpersonintx 3y ago
[dead]
MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
> And its not even CRT, that would actually make sense > Size also way to small These statements are a bit of a contradiction since these old systems were commonly run on 14" CRTs.
- redder23 3y ago
  No, not at all, as I would not be interested in replicating the exact experience as it was but have a better experience with a huge CRT instead. I actually think the CRT hype is also not worth it but I at least can get behind that because its really a different and old school look. I think they cause more eye strain right? Just technically its good for different resolutions because modern screens should always run native res only. But again emulators can do so much more and have modern up-scaling techniques that make things look good so I think its a waste of money. To pay 300+ for some tiny screen that has nothing special to offer.

glimshe 3y ago

The emulators can be pretty good, but for people looking for the nostalgia, it might not really cut it. It doesn't fully send you back to your childhood, so if you have money to spend on this, and are passionate about it, it actually makes sense to get the full experience. It's not too different from wanting to experience old music in vinyl rather than digital.

MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
Right. These Checkmate folks seem to be doing it the right way, IMO. The housing matches the look of old CRTs while adding new capabilities, and the pricing is practical. I spent the better half of my youth trying to make CRTs look as crisp as what we take for granted with LCDs. I have no desire to go back to those days (and no desire to lug my 32" CRT up and down stair cases). So to all retro enthusiasts: let's celebrate those older systems but let's also appreciate what we have. Old systems have never looked better than they do on modern screens.
cool_scatter 3y ago
As someone who does often play retro games on a CRT TV, this monitor wouldn't cut it either. Same reason I never understood those "retro consoles", even the official ones made by Nintendo/Sony. At the end of the day it's just a plastic shell made to look like the old thing around something new.
- wharvle 3y ago
  The Nintendo ones are plug-in-and-start-playing, come with controllers as good as the originals (I can side-by-side them—the new ones are excellent reproductions) and that feel exactly the same, and have a UI that a kid can figure out and that you don't have to set up or configure yourself, at all. The SNES Classic in particular was one of the best deals in gaming I've ever seen. So much zero-hassle entertainment in one package, all ready to attach to a TV and go. No downloading, no updates, no horse-shit, it just plays like 30 amazing games providing hundreds of hours of entertainment for around $100, and you didn't have to do anything to make that happen (that you can do nerd-shit and add dozens more games to it is simply a bonus) Other retro consoles I've seen have kinda been shit, but the Nintendo ones are great. Not everybody wants to or knows how to screw around with computers in their spare time so they can play Mario. "But the Switch et c. can play many of those games, and more" True, however, 1) The original controllers are really nice to have for the games, especially on the NES where they're far easier to learn than even the SNES controller for very-young new gamers, and you can get them for the Switch, but that's an add-on and getting two of them costs about as much as a whole NES Classic did, 2) Maybe you have two TVs and you don't want to buy a second switch for price reasons, or perhaps because you'd rather one of the TVs be more chill so you don't have to police it as much for the kids, or whatever, and 3) Playing those games on the Switch costs a subscription—with the Classic consoles, you pay once and it's yours until it breaks.
  - cool_scatter 3y ago
    That's all fair, I definitely see the appeal (especially regarding the controllers, which is something third-party companies have struggled to get right for decades). They're a good way to play the games. But for me at least (and I've heard similar sentiments from others), a big part of the "retro experience" comes from playing on a real console and a CRT TV. Something about the built-in firmware and knowing it's basically just a raspberry pi under the hood puts me off the whole thing and I would rather just emulate on a PC because it's less hassle. But ultimately of course if you enjoy it then keep doing so!
    - wharvle 3y ago
wharvle 3y ago
A lot of console and arcade games up through roughly the first Playstation arguably look better on a CRT than with any amount of upscaling or smoothing or whatever, even without factoring in nostalgia. But of course we have shaders for that, now, that can get one pretty damn close and take up zero extra space in one's house.
- redder23 3y ago
  What is your point? As I said that overpriced think is NOT CRT and I actually think the hype about is not justified. I do not own a CRT but I think they would cause eye strain and modern up-scaling and smoothing and all that stuff makes games look objectively better.
creshal 3y ago
But then you might as well get a real CRT to go along with your real consoles, and get the actual childhood experience of zero-lag inputs and CRT blur smoothing out the image. Why spend more money on an inferior experience? CRTs might be out of production, but there's still plenty floating on ebay.

oldpersonintx 3y ago

[dead]

MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago

> And its not even CRT, that would actually make sense > Size also way to small These statements are a bit of a contradiction since these old systems were commonly run on 14" CRTs.

redder23 3y ago
No, not at all, as I would not be interested in replicating the exact experience as it was but have a better experience with a huge CRT instead. I actually think the CRT hype is also not worth it but I at least can get behind that because its really a different and old school look. I think they cause more eye strain right? Just technically its good for different resolutions because modern screens should always run native res only. But again emulators can do so much more and have modern up-scaling techniques that make things look good so I think its a waste of money. To pay 300+ for some tiny screen that has nothing special to offer.