Widescreen vs. Fullscreen Implementation

[MrWibble]

lol...does have a point. Having the correct speaker arrangment and using 5.1 to its potential (while listening for footsteps and or shooting), you could pick out your enemy just by the sound the enemy makes. That could be used as an advantage also.

Yeah, and stop PC users from running at higher resolutions because they can resolve things in the distance more easily. And make them all use the same mouse, just in case one has a faster refresh that gives finer grain control. And frankly your chairs looks a bit more comfy than mine, so clearly we need to standardise on that too...

If you want to have a totally level playing field then you're probably taking playing very seriously - in which case you'll probably get a good setup (or already have one) and won't expect everyone else to downgrade to your level. If you're just an average person looking to have some fun then you probably won't care much if another player has a slightly different view of the world in the first place.

And besides that, in the few times I've bothered playing something on the LAN at work we were all on fairly different spec'd machines and it rarely mattered - the betters players won whether they had good or bad machines, big or small monitors, and whether they ran at 120 or 20 fps...

 

[EasyRaider]

And 5.1 gives users an advantage too; do you want them to turn off srroundsound as well?

Of course not. I'm not concerned about keeping a level playing field. 5.1 is obviously better than stereo speakers in a surround sound environment like most modern games. Widescreen displays are a tradeoff which gives more horizontal view area at the expense of less vertical view area (for any given display size).

Granted, it's probably a good tradeoff for entertainment purposes. Again, I just feel 16:9 is a bit wide for general gaming, I think 16:10 (or a hypothetical 3:2) would be a better sweet spot.

 

[fallguy]

I'm assuming they won't even bother, games will just be letterboxed on 4:3 televisions.

I hope you are correct.

 

[EasyRaider]

I hope you are correct.

To save development time/cost? I can certainly sympathize with that point of view. It means they will lose a few sales, but perhaps not enough to matter.

 

[Squeak]

you probably won't care much if another player has a slightly different view of the world in the first place.

That would be the third place.

 

[_leech_]

To save development time/cost? I can certainly sympathize with that point of view. It means they will lose a few sales, but perhaps not enough to matter.

Why would widescreen support cost sales?

 

[EasyRaider]

Why would widescreen support cost sales?

It wouldn't. Not supporting anything else than 16:9 will.

 

[_leech_]

Not supporting anything else than 16:9 will.

That's what i meant. Why?

 

[BlueTsunami]

at the expense of less vertical view area

There is no EXPENSE, as the picture in the last thread has shown area is ADDED to the viewing space. Saying at the EXPENSE of Vertical Viewing area is basically saying you LOSE vertical viewing area just to have more of a horizontal view...which isn't the case. You have the same VERTICAL viewing area...just with more HORIZONTAL viewing area.

 

[EasyRaider]

That's what i meant. Why?

Because I don't want to play with black bars. After all, it's quite easy to support different aspect ratios in games, just a few lines of code and a little bit of testing.

Looking at the big picture, though, I don't think many would care. TV viewers are used to black bars.

 

[kyleb]

Of course not. I'm not concerned about keeping a level playing field. 5.1 is obviously better than stereo speakers in a surround sound environment like most modern games.

Well then that kinda blows the "It gives widescreen users an advantage" argument, eh?

Widescreen displays are a tradeoff which gives more horizontal view area at the expense of less vertical view area (for any given display size).

It is a tradeoff designed to give a larger view for widescreen content such as movies and video gamers, hacking off from the top and the bottom of the 4:3 view would be a complete betrayal of that tradeoff.

 

[EasyRaider]

There is no EXPENSE, as the picture in the last thread has shown area is ADDED to the viewing space. Saying at the EXPENSE of Vertical Viewing area is basically saying you LOSE vertical viewing area just to have more of a horizontal view...which isn't the case. You have the same VERTICAL viewing area...just with more HORIZONTAL viewing area.

I meant in terms of physical display area. What you see in-game is totally application dependant. The picture referred to is one way of doing it, but certainly not the only "correct" way in general.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I meant in terms of physical display area. What you see in-game is totally application dependant. The picture referred to is one way of doing it, but certainly not the only "correct" way in general.

Its not the "correct" way, but as I said before...why detract from Vertical Viewing area and add to horizontal viewing area when you have the ability to keep the original vertical viewing area? I fully understand that some games and movies take away from the vertical viewing area....but the way it SHOULD be done is keeping the original aspect ratio and just adding more viewing area horizontaly.

The reason I bring this up is because your threw the "16:9 detracts from vertical viewing area" as if that was the correct way to implement 16:9. Which it shouldn't be and i'm sure developers are going to use the "add to horizontal viewing area while keeping the vertical viewing area" implemenation of 16:9 (hopefully).

So in part, 16:9 (if done the way I explained) should be ok since vertical viewing area is still the same. As far as your argument for there being an unfair advantage for adopter of 16:9 televisions...someone already stated that 4:3 TVs will probably be forced into Letterbox (which will give you the SAME vertical and horizontal viewing area...just with black bars above and below)....but if you want a 4:3 aspect ratio (at the expense of horizontal viewing area) then you put yourself at that disadvantage.

 

[EasyRaider]

Well then that kinda blows the "It gives widescreen users an advantage" argument, eh?

Maybe. I did not mean to imply it's unfair, I just couldn't see why a middle ground would be less right.

It is a tradeoff designed to give a larger view for widescreen content such as movies and video gamers, hacking off from the top and the bottom of the 4:3 view would be a complete betrayal of that tradeoff.

So why not go for 2.35:1 right away? That would give an even larger view, right? No wait, give us 10:1! Imagine how much peripheral vision that would give us!

 

[BlueTsunami]

Maybe. I did not mean to imply it's unfair, I just couldn't see why a middle ground would be less right.


So why not go for 2.35:1 right away? That would give an even larger view, right? No wait, give us 10:1! Imagine how much peripheral vision that would give us!

So your arguing by giving complete extreme numbers? The point of Widescreen is to give you a natural perspective view. I would be surprised if your peripheral vision is equal to 4:3....unless your looking through a box. 16:9 is supposed to give you that natural perspective feel to the image or video...

and 10:1? Only if your Robocop

 

[EasyRaider]

BlueTsunami, I can see where you're coming from. But consider this example: I have a small 16:9 display (and 16:9 games). I then move to a much larger 4:3 display. I can run games letterboxed, but that only gives me a slightly larger area than before, so I would like to use the full 4:3 area. Now would it be natural to reduce horizontal FOV to do this? No, the natural thing would be to add at the top and bottom. You may argue that doing so is useless, but really, vertical view can be just as important, depending on the situation.

So, I claim that the best way is to let the user adjust both aspect ratio and FOV to suit display and viewing distance.

 

[EasyRaider]

The point of Widescreen is to give you a natural perspective view. I would be surprised if your peripheral vision is equal to 4:3....unless your looking through a box. 16:9 is supposed to give you that natural perspective feel to the image or video...

Natural or not, I'm not convinced 16:9 is that much better than 4:3 for the majority of games. To repeat myself, I think the "sweet spot" lies somewhere in between.

For movies though, there's no contest. 16:9 (or thereabouts) just gives the right cinematic feeling.

 

[scooby_dooby]

16x9 is perfect, 4x3 is way too confined, some of us like a little peripheral vision you know!

The whole idea of 16x9 is to give you a wide view, much more like human vision where we can see off to the side, rather than confined to some little box. Our vision is MUCH more like a rectangle than it is a square.

As for it being somewhere in the middle I disagree 110%, I could even go wider, when you look at a DVD's aspect ratio, it's even higher than 16:9 and still looks great.

Being able to see of to each side is a much more natural feeling and makes playing alot more enjoyable IMO, of course it's an advantage to have 16x9, you can see more area, it should be an advantage since you invested hard earned money to purchase it. It's no different than if you shell out the money for 5.1 audio, well now you can hear people sneak up behind you, and you have an advantage.

That's why for 16x9 to be done "right" it shouldn't loose any viewable area, and only ADD to the screen size, otherwise it's not an advantage, it's a disadvantage, which is not what people payed for. It would be the equivalent of a game stating 5.1 support, then outputting audio that only came out of 1 speaker and sounded worse that composite.

For 5.1 to be done RIGHT it needs to be true 5 channel audio, just as for 16x9 to be done RIGHT, it need to expand the viewable area horizontally.

edit - also in response to your comment of why don't they try and REALLY simulate vision by having focus in teh centre, and blurring around teh outsides, take a look at the lates 3d PGR3 screenshot where they do exactly that, combine that witha full 16x9 ratio, and that's some damn good video gaming IMO.

 

[kyleb]

Maybe. I did not mean to imply it's unfair, I just couldn't see why a middle ground would be less right.

Becuase the optimal viewing distance from picture of a given hight is the same regardless of the aspect ratio of the image; and hence, the optimal vertical range of view is the same as well.

So why not go for 2.35:1 right away? That would give an even larger view, right? No wait, give us 10:1! Imagine how much peripheral vision that would give us!

If wider displays became popular then it would be nice to see game developers supporting them, but the upcoming console games are obviously going to be optomised around 16:9 displays as they are built to render at 16:9 resolutions.

BlueTsunami, I can see where you're coming from. But consider this example: I have a small 16:9 display (and 16:9 games). I then move to a much larger 4:3 display. I can run games letterboxed, but that only gives me a slightly larger area than before, so I would like to use the full 4:3 area. Now would it be natural to reduce horizontal FOV to do this? No, the natural thing would be to add at the top and bottom.

That isn't natural, that is like playing Quake or whatever on a 4:3 monitor at an FOV of 110. Sure, some people do it but most people don't care to play in fisheye mode.

You may argue that doing so is useless, but really, vertical view can be just as important, depending on the situation.

If you really want to turn widescreen on run it fullscreen to a 4:3 TV then I'm sure you will be able to on all the new consoles, but I doubr many people play Halo2 and such with everything looking tall and skinny.

So, I claim that the best way is to let the user adjust both aspect ratio and FOV to suit display and viewing distance.

And that they do in the very rudmentry way I mentioned above, but I doubt we will see much more than that as most people don't expect more or even care to see it in console games.

 

[EasyRaider]

16x9 is perfect, 4x3 is way too confined, some of us like a little peripheral vision you know!

Peripheral includes top and bottom, not just the sides.

As for it being somewhere in the middle I disagree 110%, I could even go wider, when you look at a DVD's aspect ratio, it's even higher than 16:9 and still looks great.

Sure, 2.35:1 looks great. But if I imagine myself playing like that, I really miss seeing more of what's going on above and below. We'll just have to agree to disagree here. :smile:

of course it's an advantage to have 16x9, you can see more area, it should be an advantage since you invested hard earned money to purchase it. It's no different than if you shell out the money for 5.1 audio, well now you can hear people sneak up behind you, and you have an advantage.

That's why for 16x9 to be done "right" it shouldn't loose any viewable area, and only ADD to the screen size, otherwise it's not an advantage, it's a disadvantage, which is not what people payed for. It would be the equivalent of a game stating 5.1 support, then outputting audio that only came out of 1 speaker and sounded worse that composite.

For 5.1 to be done RIGHT it needs to be true 5 channel audio, just as for 16x9 to be done RIGHT, it need to expand the viewable area horizontally.

I don't think it's the same thing. If I invest in a huge 4:3 display, should I then expect to see more above and below than other players? If I get some extra wide projector, should I expect to see more than those with 16:9? Why should 16:9 be the one and only gold standard, when some games or individual tastes may be more suited to a different format, and 4:3 is still more common?

With speakers it's obvious. More is better, assuming the same quality.