Widescreen - worth it?

A

andru

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2006
Messages
176
I'm toying with the idea of grabbing that 20.1 Benq on the egg for gaming.

Alot of games support widescreen, however I noticed that BF2 does not. There are workarounds by using the command line, however it just stretches the view (and cuts off part of the top and bottom).

I was wondering what the general consensus about widescreen was. When games don't support it, does it ruin the experience?

Anyone regret their WS purchase?
Anyone swear by em?

Discuss =)
 
I just bought one and I like the aspect ratio since it fill up my field of view perfectly.

BF2 and 2142 in squashed mode doesn't bother me at all, don't even notice it.
 
Since both of my tv's at home are widescreen as well as my laptop....it was a natural thing to go wide for my computer monitor. Now it feels strange using my 4:3 lcd at work even though I've been using it for 3 years..
 
There is a ton of useful w/s info at the Widescreen Gaming Forums. And you can, in most cases, change the field of view in most games, which will allow you to run in widescreen without the "stretch".
 
Widecreen has been incredible for games and great for video editing. If you're worried about streching/squashing, but a monitor with 1:1 pixel mapping. I have the Dell 2007WFP which does this and it comes in great when I don't want to / can't run in 1680x1050 and don't want to deal with scaling.
 
I've got a Sammy 21" WS and a NEC 22" CRT vanilla screen. Six of one and half a dozen of the other. In other words, each has it's advantages and neither really superior IMO. WS is often way overhyped.
 
I like using my 13.3" WS MacBook more than I do looking at my 4:3 19" Samsung 191T (hopefully replacing with a 16:10 225BW soon) because of it's wide screen, and I guess OS X has a little to do with it :D

Yeah, WS is awesome, screens feel like you can hold a lot more on them and stuff, or at least that's how I feel.

There's less pixels on my MacBook than on my desktop and I feel like the MacBook shows more solely because it's 16:10 aspect ratio; it works a lot better for 16:9 movies as well.
 
I am not sure about lower resolutions, but I have a widescreen CRT (if the dang thing stays alive :D ) and pretty much do everything at 1920x1200, and it rocks.. There is no way in hell I could ever play WoW at 4:3 ratio again. It would feel like my eye was being strangled!
 
wanted to add, i think i like widescreen more is because people naturally see in "widescreen" i- see more to my left and right then i see above/below me~

I like my widescreen monitor.
 
Greenwit said:
I've got a Sammy 21" WS and a NEC 22" CRT vanilla screen. Six of one and half a dozen of the other. In other words, each has it's advantages and neither really superior IMO. WS is often way overhyped.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but what made up my mind up about widescreen is that I feel its going to be the standard in the near future. TVs have gone digital and widescreen. Home theater PCs are here. The distinction between TV and computer are blurring, so its only natural that computer monitors are going widescreen (although at 16:10 vs 16:9).
 
I have a 21" widescreen. Really, a 21" 4:3 seems a lot bigger. It actually is bigger, but not by that much. I have to agree its over-hyped, unless its a 24" panel.
 
briank said:
Perhaps, but what made up my mind up about widescreen is that I feel its going to be the standard in the near future. TVs have gone digital and widescreen. Home theater PCs are here. The distinction between TV and computer are blurring, so its only natural that computer monitors are going widescreen (although at 16:10 vs 16:9).
Click to expand...

If you treat your comp like a TV then it is natural to go WS. I have a 50 inch WS panasonic plasma and high def requires WS. But if you use your comp like a comp then WS is irrelevant. Your eyes are focused on points on the screen (ie when web browsing) and not the entire screen when you are watching a movie and taking in the entire scene. Of course for gaming, if the title supports WS then having a WS monitor is a huge benefit. I think though it is more of a bother for web browsing and word processing work.
 
andru said:
I'm toying with the idea of grabbing that 20.1 Benq on the egg for gaming.
I was wondering what the general consensus about widescreen was.
Click to expand...

Widescreen is ok from 23/24" on. I would *NEVER* buy a 20" WS. Why? 20" WS is much smaller. At 1680*1050 against 1600*1200 you lose too much in the vertical for a neglible gain in the horizontal. 4:3 20" can do what the WS can do and has extra space above and below. In this context, why would anyone buy a 20" WS (except that they're cheaper and for a reason, too) instead of a regular 20" is beyond me.
 
ijozic said:
Widescreen is ok from 23/24" on. I would *NEVER* buy a 20" WS. Why? 20" WS is much smaller. At 1680*1050 against 1600*1200 you lose too much in the vertical for a neglible gain in the horizontal. 4:3 20" can do what the WS can do and has extra space above and below. In this context, why would anyone buy a 20" WS (except that they're cheaper and for a reason, too) instead of a regular 20" is beyond me.
Click to expand...

This may also be a advantage for those who run a video card less powerful than the flagship ones like me. I wanted to be able to run at native resolution without pushing too much on the 7900GS. 24"+ use a higher resolution, which often double or triple the requirement on the videocard.
 
ijozic said:
Widescreen is ok from 23/24" on. I would *NEVER* buy a 20" WS. Why? 20" WS is much smaller. At 1680*1050 against 1600*1200 you lose too much in the vertical for a neglible gain in the horizontal. 4:3 20" can do what the WS can do and has extra space above and below. In this context, why would anyone buy a 20" WS (except that they're cheaper and for a reason, too) instead of a regular 20" is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Agree. My sammy 215tw is a bit larger than the conventional 20" WS. I lose about an inch in height compared to my NEC 22" CRT and wouldn't want to lose anymore north/south real estate.
 
ijozic said:
Widescreen is ok from 23/24" on. I would *NEVER* buy a 20" WS. Why? 20" WS is much smaller. At 1680*1050 against 1600*1200 you lose too much in the vertical for a neglible gain in the horizontal. 4:3 20" can do what the WS can do and has extra space above and below. In this context, why would anyone buy a 20" WS (except that they're cheaper and for a reason, too) instead of a regular 20" is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. It seems to be fashion largely driven by squeeing fans. Just witness the responses in this this thread so far.

For me, I have nothing against 16:10 format as long as the screen is big enough:

1920x1200 > 1600x1200 > 1680x1050 > 1400x1050 > 1280x1024

Widescreen gaming images that they often refer to on WSGF, use images of 20" 1680x1050 compared to 17" 1280x1024 and then say look how much better widescreen is. Well Duh? If you actually look close you would see that most games shown actually just stretch the content (distorting its shape) or cut the top and bottom off. Hardly an advantage. Games that actually can work decently usually have a variable field of view so you can get the same FOV on 1600x1200 monitor anyway.
 
Hmm, with all this talk of 20" widescreen being disapointing, maybe I should just wait until I can afford a 24"?

Currently I have a 19" LCD, thinking abou the BenQ 20.1" WS.... but not really a point if they're both the same size eh?
 
andru said:
Hmm, with all this talk of 20" widescreen being disapointing, maybe I should just wait until I can afford a 24"?

Currently I have a 19" LCD, thinking abou the BenQ 20.1" WS.... but not really a point if they're both the same size eh?
Click to expand...


Actually a 20" WS is exactly the same height as a 17" LCD, not a 19" LCD.
 
Snowdog said:
Actually a 20" WS is exactly the same height as a 17" LCD, not a 19" LCD.
Click to expand...
And similarly my 17" widescreen (laptop) is the same width as a 20" 4:3 monitor. So that means movies (16:9 or wider) on my laptop appear the same size as on a 20" normal (4:3) ratio screen.
 
artmonkey said:
And similarly my 17" widescreen (laptop) is the same width as a 20" 4:3 monitor. So that means movies (16:9 or wider) on my laptop appear the same size as on a 20" normal (4:3) ratio screen.
Click to expand...

You need to lay off whatever you are smoking, or go back to grade school for basic math:

20" 4:3
Viewable Image Info:
Image Dimensions: 16.07" x 12.08"
Image area: 194.13 sq. in.

17" 16:10
Viewable Image Info:
Image Dimensions: 14.42" x 9.01"
Image area: 129.92 sq. in.


Somehow I don't see 14.4" being just as wide as 16".
 
SALEEN said:
Don't be a square ;)
Click to expand...

Cute.


I cannot go back to 4:3 even for regular usage. I hate work monitors becasue the y are squares. I love my widescreen and cannot go back. Kind of like raptors vs a reg HD.
 
Snowdog said:
Totally agree. It seems to be fashion largely driven by squeeing fans. Just witness the responses in this this thread so far.

For me, I have nothing against 16:10 format as long as the screen is big enough:

1920x1200 > 1600x1200 > 1680x1050 > 1400x1050 > 1280x1024

Widescreen gaming images that they often refer to on WSGF, use images of 20" 1680x1050 compared to 17" 1280x1024 and then say look how much better widescreen is. Well Duh? If you actually look close you would see that most games shown actually just stretch the content (distorting its shape) or cut the top and bottom off. Hardly an advantage. Games that actually can work decently usually have a variable field of view so you can get the same FOV on 1600x1200 monitor anyway.
Click to expand...

Not all games stretch. As old as Everquest is, the new graphics engine (looks great btw!) fully supports "real" widescreen automatically and is a wonder to behold. Even older games like BF1942 and BFV support widescreen but I will grant you that in some of the older games you have to manually enter the new resolution.

Widescreen rocks on games and I suspect that all new games will have "true" widescreen support built in.

-JB
 
MC FLMJIG said:
Cute.


I cannot go back to 4:3 even for regular usage. I hate work monitors becasue the y are squares. I love my widescreen and cannot go back. Kind of like raptors vs a reg HD.
Click to expand...

4:3 is *not* square. I'm typing on a NEC fe1250+ CRT (20 inch diagonal view area). It is 12 inches north/south and 16 inches east/west. It hardly feels unnatural and to suggest it is an ancient just shows how laughable the WS hype machine can be. My home monitor is a 21" WS.
 
jrb531 said:
Not all games stretch. As old as Everquest is, the new graphics engine (looks great btw!) fully supports "real" widescreen automatically and is a wonder to behold. Even older games like BF1942 and BFV support widescreen but I will grant you that in some of the older games you have to manually enter the new resolution.

Widescreen rocks on games and I suspect that all new games will have "true" widescreen support built in.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure not all games stretch (which is hideous BTW) but for any game with variable FOV there is no argument to made for either aspect. Bigger will simply be better and 20" 16:12 is bigger than 20" 16:10. I noticed this when the first widescreen TV's came out. Someone had a 34" 4:3 which was a monster. Later I was excited to check out one of the first 34" widescreens and I was amazed how small it was.

When you hold the Diagnal constant. Most of the difference going to Widescreen comes from chopping off the top and bottom of fullscreen, not by making it wider.

BTW, here is a typical example of how WSGF portray the benefits of wide screen. This is what many use as proof of the "superiority" of widescreen.

They use a much higher res wide picture. That makes the comparison so loaded it serves no value whatsoever. How about comparing 20" full to 17" widescreen. Would that be fair? This is the way all their "comparisons" are done. The fullscreen image is even shorter in the vertical than the glorious widescreen image. Which this is actually like comparing a 16" full screen to a 20" widescreen. Every single comparison is done this way. Comparing a 16" FS to 20" WS is hardly proof that WS is better when the Diagnol is constant.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/screens/ds2_wide.jpg
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/screens/ds2_full.jpg

In reality let us balance this out and see what is going on. I didn't crop. I just resized their gross over-reprsentation. What we really have for that widescreen image on the bottom, is the same horizontal FOV as fullscreen with the top and bottom cut off. But games like this with adjustable FOV, you can adjust anywhere you want, so you can alway set the fullscreen to have the same FOV in width but greater in vertical. And don't give me that BS about filling your FOV. I sit less than 2 feet away from a 21" fullscreen CRT and I see the big cerwin Vega center channel on top, and the wall behind that, and my desk below that and my keyboard in front of that. You would have to literally be about 3 inches from screen before you field of view was filled. Get to an Imax if you want to really see what filling your field of view is like.
http://ct.pbase.com/o5/04/606404/1/69959526.aHXCc0kF.ds2_adjust.jpg
69959526.aHXCc0kF.ds2_adjust.jpg
 
andru said:
Hmm, with all this talk of 20" widescreen being disapointing, maybe I should just wait until I can afford a 24"?

Currently I have a 19" LCD, thinking abou the BenQ 20.1" WS.... but not really a point if they're both the same size eh?
Click to expand...

If you are going from a 19" 4:3 LCD, then you may want to wait until you can afford the 24".

However, a blanket statement that 20" or less are just not worth it, misses many who are quite happy. For example, my 17" CRT burned out, so I replaced it with a very affordable ViewSonic VX1935wm (19" widescreen) and I couldn't be happier! All my current games support widescreen (has a selection asking what the ratio is 4:3 or 16:10 and you select which one you want at the moment.)

But for those that have deep pockets and can afford whatever they want, then a much larger display makes significantly more sense.
 
jrb531 said:
Widescreen rocks on games and I suspect that all new games will have "true" widescreen support built in.
Click to expand...

Need For Speed Carbon doesn't. Battlefield 2142 doesn't. Prey doesn't. Those are just the few games I've played recently. I'm sure there are plenty more. I think its stupid that all new games aren't supporting widescreen, and I wouldn't get too hopeful that its going to change in the immediate future thanks to moronic companies like EA taking a stance that widescreen gives an unfair advantage over 4:3. Not at 1680x1050.
 
Scyles said:
Need For Speed Carbon doesn't. Battlefield 2142 doesn't. Prey doesn't. Those are just the few games I've played recently. I'm sure there are plenty more. I think its stupid that all new games aren't supporting widescreen, and I wouldn't get too hopeful that its going to change in the immediate future thanks to moronic companies like EA taking a stance that widescreen gives an unfair advantage over 4:3. Not at 1680x1050.
Click to expand...

What does that mean? I could see them offering 16:10 but restricting to the same horizontal FOV if they are concerned about an even playing field. That seems reasonable and some games do this. Or if they offer the option of a wider FOV also offer that option to other screen aspects as well. They are just presenting a window on a 3d world after all.

But it would be kind of nuts to release a game with black bars on the sides these days in only 4:3 if that is what you mean.
 
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant that the games I listed have no widescreen resolutions available. I can't select 1680x1050 in those games. Everything has to be stretched or run in 4:3 mode with black bars.

EA is one company on record for saying that their reasoning for not allowing widescreen support in their games is that widescreen gamers have an unfair advantage in a multiplayer environment. They seem to be leaving widescreen res out of their games that include a multiplayer component.
 
As someone who's entire computer career has been dominated solely by 4:3 aspect CRT's and only fairly recently, an LCD, widescreen is an unbelievable jump. The resolutions especially on larger sizes (like my new Dell 2407) is incredible. The only problem is that DeviantArt and Interfacelift are my only two offhand sources of wallpapers that take advantage of the crispness offered. I'm not sure if Liquid Light has any this size, but regardless, my decent collection of attractive female wallpapers has ran into a sizing and quality wall at the moment.

The only real negative is that you might never be able to return to a different size again.

Dark Assassin
 
Scyles said:
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant that the games I listed have no widescreen resolutions available. I can't select 1680x1050 in those games. Everything has to be stretched or run in 4:3 mode with black bars.

EA is one company on record for saying that their reasoning for not allowing widescreen support in their games is that widescreen gamers have an unfair advantage in a multiplayer environment. They seem to be leaving widescreen res out of their games that include a multiplayer component.
Click to expand...

Wow. That is just nuts. All they have to do for fairness is give the same horizontal FOV. I am sure they will change this soon, with the amount of WS monitors being sold.
 
Scyles said:
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant that the games I listed have no widescreen resolutions available. I can't select 1680x1050 in those games. Everything has to be stretched or run in 4:3 mode with black bars.

EA is one company on record for saying that their reasoning for not allowing widescreen support in their games is that widescreen gamers have an unfair advantage in a multiplayer environment. They seem to be leaving widescreen res out of their games that include a multiplayer component.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO! This has to be the stupidest thing I have read in a long long time. So EA... 800x600 vs 1600x1200 is a level playing field but me playing at 1680x1050 is not????

I guess by EA's "logic" that when in multiplayer mode the game should all resort to 800x600 mode so no one gets an advantage!

Oh my.... I wonder if the moron at EA who said that is still working for EA LOL.

-JB

P.S. I like widescreen because it gives me screen where I want it... left to right and keeps the pixel count down so my video card does not choke LOL.

Maybe if I played flight sims then widescreen would not mean as much but at least in Everquest and other 3D games widescreen rocks!

BTW BF1942, BFV, BF2 all support widescreen although you have to hack the config files. I find it hard to beleive that BF2142 does not allow the same settings although I agree that this needs to be a menu item and not make up hack the files to get it to work.

If a game that came out in '99 - Everquest - can support near any resolution including widescreen in a menu then any game can. It's really sweet being about to use some kickass custom UI's for EQ and put much of the UI off to the left and right sides thus allowing me more FOV.

-JB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top