Are Wide Screen Resolutions Hard to Program For?

[Elfear]

That's the only thing I can figure when brand new games come out and they don't have a widescreen option. Seems like with widescreen users being more and more prevalent that game programmers would code for it, unless it's a pain in the rear. Anyone know for sure?

 

[Matthias99]

It's not "hard" to program for, but it requires that your engine support variable aspect ratios and FOV settings. If you didn't build this in to begin with, it's sometimes not trivial to add it later.

You can also improve performance slightly by hardcoding it at a 4:3 AR, but that's usually not a big factor.

 

[xtknight]

I don't think they see enough demand.

 

[lifeguard1999]

No, it is not hard to program for at all. In OpenGL it is simply a glFrustum() or gluPerspective() call. It is Chapter 3 in the OpenGL red book. I assume DirectX programming is similar. So why don't they do it more often? Because widescreens are a recent development and games take awhile to write.

 

[forumposter32]

I've seen widescreens with resolutions of 1600x1200 so that forces you to get Uber expensive video cards.

I might get a 19" LCD next year because of the 1280x1024 resolution. Hell, you can always use AA.

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: forumposter32
I've seen widescreens with resolutions of 1600x1200 so that forces you to get Uber expensive video cards.

I might get a 19" LCD next year because of the 1280x1024 resolution. Hell, you can always use AA.

uhh 1600x1200 is a standard 4:3 resolution...

 

[Unkno]

Originally posted by: lifeguard1999
So why don't they do it more often? Because widescreens are a recent development and games take awhile to write.

well, some programmers are just lazy to develope/add something that no one at that time uses or have. For example, there's actually a choice for widescreen in the old half-life engine (Also CS) and that game is like 6 years old....

 

[HendrixFan]

I know with AoE3 it took them one day to add it into the game. For them, it wasnt a matter of how difficult it would be, just whether or not it made the game better. Playing it in widescreen didnt suck, so they added it.

 

[nitromullet]

There are a lot of games that actually support WS natively, but the developers don't make it easy to select (like via a drop down). They make you edit some config file. Doom3, Quake4, FEAR, and UT2004 are all like that. Actually editing the file usually isn't a big deal, but knowing where the file is and what to edit can be. This doesn't make any sense to me. Why would they not want to make WS support easy? Games are for entertainment afterall. IMO, as much as I do like the site, there should be no reason that widescreengamingforum.com should even exist.

 

[lifeguard1999]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
There are a lot of games that actually support WS natively, but the developers don't make it easy to select (like via a drop down). They make you edit some config file. Doom3, Quake4, FEAR, and UT2004 are all like that. Actually editing the file usually isn't a big deal, but knowing where the file is and what to edit can be. This doesn't make any sense to me. Why would they not want to make WS support easy? Games are for entertainment afterall. IMO, as much as I do like the site, there should be no reason that widescreengamingforum.com should even exist.

But I'll bet you are glad that it does exist! 🙂

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
There are a lot of games that actually support WS natively, but the developers don't make it easy to select (like via a drop down). They make you edit some config file. Doom3, Quake4, FEAR, and UT2004 are all like that. Actually editing the file usually isn't a big deal, but knowing where the file is and what to edit can be. This doesn't make any sense to me. Why would they not want to make WS support easy? Games are for entertainment afterall. IMO, as much as I do like the site, there should be no reason that widescreengamingforum.com should even exist.

You sure that UT2K4 doesn't support it natively? It did on the last install I did, and I had bought the game I think a month after it was out.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: nitromullet
There are a lot of games that actually support WS natively, but the developers don't make it easy to select (like via a drop down). They make you edit some config file. Doom3, Quake4, FEAR, and UT2004 are all like that. Actually editing the file usually isn't a big deal, but knowing where the file is and what to edit can be. This doesn't make any sense to me. Why would they not want to make WS support easy? Games are for entertainment afterall. IMO, as much as I do like the site, there should be no reason that widescreengamingforum.com should even exist.

You sure that UT2K4 doesn't support it natively? It did on the last install I did, and I had bought the game I think a month after it was out.

IIRC it'll let you select a widescreen resolution if one is listed by your driver, but it doesn't automatically change the FOV for you.

 

[Markbnj]

For FPS's the engine usually supports it, but there are design issues. Is it fair for some people to have a 16:10 view while others have a 4:3?

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
For FPS's the engine usually supports it, but there are design issues. Is it fair for some people to have a 16:10 view while others have a 4:3?

If anything, it's unfair for the people using widescreen (this may be what you were implying, but I'll spell it out for everyone else). The folks with "standard" screens get 16:12, whereas the widescreen users get 16:9 or 16:10 - less overall space. There's nothing stopping the widescreen users from using a standard 4:3 mode, though - it won't take up the whole physical LCD (if you maintain correct aspect ratio), but it should be plenty playable, especially on a larger LCD like the 2005FPW.

You could make an argument that the wider FOV is helpful, but you're still losing some vertical view, which can be a killer in some games.

-Erwos

 

[aldamon]

Isn't widescreen mode usually a cropped 4:3 image in today's games instead of a native 16:9 image with more on the screen?

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: aldamon
Isn't widescreen mode usually a cropped 4:3 image in today's games instead of a native 16:9 image with more on the screen?

Depends on the game. Guild Wars and GTA:SA both have _real_ 16:9 support. I think it's more common to have native at this point.

-Erwos

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
Is it fair for some people to have a 16:10 view while others have a 4:3?

"Fair" is a very relative concept in online FPS gaming. Is it "fair" that someone uses 7800GTX, while everyone else are using GeForce 4 and thus have to crank down the resolution and detail? (not to mention less viewing distance rendered)

You can't really think like that. As long as the user isn't using aimbots or similar, the game shouldn't punish him for simply having better hardware (it is usually a short-lived experience in most cases).

 

[Elfear]

Interesting responses guys. So , if I'm understanding this right, if game developers program widescreen ratios in from the beginning than it's a piece of cake but if they try to add it later than its harder? Seems funny to me why all newer games don't have widescreen support than.

Originally posted by: BikeDude

Originally posted by: Markbnj
Is it fair for some people to have a 16:10 view while others have a 4:3?

"Fair" is a very relative concept in online FPS gaming. Is it "fair" that someone uses 7800GTX, while everyone else are using GeForce 4 and thus have to crank down the resolution and detail? (not to mention less viewing distance rendered)

You can't really think like that. As long as the user isn't using aimbots or similar, the game shouldn't punish him for simply having better hardware (it is usually a short-lived experience in most cases).

:thumbsup:

 

[Sonikku]

Many see widescreen as a fad and don't think it's worth the time to include.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: Sonikku
Many see widescreen as a fad and don't think it's worth the time to include.

Or they simply want to have some killer feature in store for their next game...

You would have to be quite walled off in order to believe 4:3 will survive the next five years. There's a lot of content out there that looks better on wide screens. If not games, then a little thing known as "Hollywood" should do the trick. Why now all of a sudden? Because LCD-technology has finally made 16:10 affordable.

To brush it off as a "fad" just illustrates that many of today's games have few lasting qualities. We buy them, but we don't really own them. We're not supposed to collect games.

 

[Ackmed]

How can it be a fad? WS is really, really popular in TV's now. Its hard to find a big screen (40"+) thats not WS.

It is the future, its just better if they accept it. Personally, I think its pathetic that devs dont add them to any "AAA" game, such as the BF series.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
How can it be a fad? WS is really, really popular in TV's now. Its hard to find a big screen (40"+) thats not WS.

It is the future, its just better if they accept it. Personally, I think its pathetic that devs dont add them to any "AAA" game, such as the BF series.

Last time I checked not many people played PC games on their TVs.

 

[Ackmed]

So? It shows its not a "fad". Walk into any Best Buy, Circuit City, even Wal Mart.. and you will find more WS TV's, than not.

Denying WS is the way future displays are going is pretty silly. In the years to come, more and more WS PC monitors will be out. Even in the last year, there are many more.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: nitromullet
There are a lot of games that actually support WS natively, but the developers don't make it easy to select (like via a drop down). They make you edit some config file. Doom3, Quake4, FEAR, and UT2004 are all like that. Actually editing the file usually isn't a big deal, but knowing where the file is and what to edit can be. This doesn't make any sense to me. Why would they not want to make WS support easy? Games are for entertainment afterall. IMO, as much as I do like the site, there should be no reason that widescreengamingforum.com should even exist.

You sure that UT2K4 doesn't support it natively? It did on the last install I did, and I had bought the game I think a month after it was out.

IIRC it'll let you select a widescreen resolution if one is listed by your driver, but it doesn't automatically change the FOV for you.

I believe this is correct... the res works fine in game, but the FOV is messed.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
So? It shows its not a "fad". Walk into any Best Buy, Circuit City, even Wal Mart.. and you will find more WS TV's, than not.

Denying WS is the way future displays are going is pretty silly. In the years to come, more and more WS PC monitors will be out. Even in the last year, there are many more.

I agree. With all the people buying widescreen LCD monitors for the PC (like the 2005FPW and 2405FPW), and given that they've fallen so much in price in recent months, I think it's safe to say that widescreen aspect ratios are here to stay. I don't think anyone's suggesting that everyone with a 4:3 (or 5:4) monitor go out and replace it with a 16:9/16:10 one immediately; just that it doesn't make sense for new games not to support it right out of the box. Sure, widescreen monitors are still a minority overall, but so are things like 6800/7800 series video cards, and game developers sure do take advantage of those...