widescreen monitors bad for gaming?

[wpeng]

I'm expecting that Dell monitor prices will drop very low soon, and I'm planning on getting a good ol' 20" Dell monitor. The problem I'm having is that the reviews of the 2005fpw are better than the 2001fp for gaming, but at the same time, the 2005 has such wonky resolutions that they probably won't be supported very well by many games. What do you think?

 

[JBT]

more and more games will start supporting widescreen resolutions and on top of that you can ussually tweak games anyways to get the right widescreen resolutions working.

here is a site dedicated to widescreen gaming.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Depends on what games you play, but yes, mostly any modern game will support the widescreen resolution (or be easily modified to support it).

I've used both the 2001FP and the 2005FPW (which I own and use as my primary monitor now), and I prefer the 2005FPW. Widescreen works great for the games I play, plus it's ideal for DVD's and HDTV.

 

[ryanv12]

There's no way I can go back to non-widescreen monitors. I do a bit of gaming (I checked first to see that my games will play/can be modified to play on widescreen) and I absolutely love it. There's nothing more immersive to just have the screen aligned with the aspect ratio of your vision.

Nevertheless, some people don't want to mess with modifying their games or taking the chance that certain games can't be modified. It's all up to you. I have no regrets though

 

[SnOop005]

Anyone know what 1680x1050 (2005fpw) res is equal to as in videocard stress wise? I heard its the same as 1600x1200.

Thanks

 

[kylebisme]

It is close to 1600x1200, bit less pixels but in games where you get a wider feild of view it may preform a bit worse.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: SnOop005
Anyone know what 1680x1050 (2005fpw) res is equal to as in videocard stress wise? I heard its the same as 1600x1200.

Thanks

In my testing, 1680x1050 is more stressing thatn 1600x1200. I only tried HL2 though, which supports true WS. 1680x1050 gave you more of a game picture, than 1600x1200, which I guess is why it was more stressing.

 

[Artuk]

Hi,

I got a laptop this year with a WXGA+ screen (1440x900) and started using it to play WoW and DAoC at friend's houses. At first the widescreen felt a little off, but once I got used to it I always felt constrained by the field of view presented by my 21" viewsonic CRT. When my girlfirend declared she was annexing my monitor (getting gf hooked on WoW VERY mixed blessing) it was the perfect opportunity to get a 20" WS.. it hasnt arrived yet but I am excited..

On my 1440x900 laptop I play a lot of strategy games too, and Civ III looks especially nice in widescreen using all the real estate for the map when you put keepres=1 in the ini. I also play RR Tycoon and Age of Wonders in native widescreen.

Probably the only problem with widescreen gaming is going back to a 4:3 when the WS isnt available.. its like someone put blinders on either side of your head..

Regards,

Artuk

 

[dfloyd]

Hmm my 2005 FPW works perfect for gaming and is even nicer in a lot of ways than the standard 4:3 screen.

On most games you get more FOV (Field of View) than you would with a standard screen so you can see more on the left and right giving you greater periphreal vison.

That and I have not ran into any game yet that I could not get to work fine in wide screen. Plus its a super nice lcd.

And games look great in widescreen res's as well. You have to have a good video card to run HQ settings at 1680 x 1050 but you can run at lower and games still look great. I run Bf2 at 1280 x 960 and it looks great on my screen.

 

[gvayl]

with the dell 2005fpw you can set the resolution to 12x10 native..it alowes you do do that so you can play 4x3 or more technically 5x4. So in essence you can play both widescreen and n4x3 games !

 

[pulsedrive]

Yeah, as I have done in every one of these threads, which there are MANY. I will put myself behind the 2005. I absolutely LOVE playing WoW on that thing. I never thought I would go for a WS, even so far as to pay about 300 bucks more for my laptop for a 4:3 screen about a year and ahalf ago. But I have definately come around.

 

[Bartokomus]

WS=Gaming Goodness

 

[BroadbandGamer]

I just got my 2005FPW today and boy and I one happy camper. This thing is beautiful! No dead pixels and no back-light bleed. What a difference compared to my 17" 4:3. Widescreen is the only true way to game IMO. Half Life 2 looks amazing! I just wish BF2 supported native widescreen! Get the 2005, you will not regret it, plus it's a better monitor then the 2001 IMO.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: BroadbandGamer
I just got my 2005FPW today and boy and I one happy camper. This thing is beautiful! No dead pixels and no back-light bleed. What a difference compared to my 17" 4:3. Widescreen is the only true way to game IMO. Half Life 2 looks amazing! I just wish BF2 supported native widescreen! Get the 2005, you will not regret it, plus it's a better monitor then the 2001 IMO.

:thumbsup:

One correction though, your 17" monitor was 5:4, not 4:3

Edit: Assuming you were talking about a 17" LCD. If it was a CRT, ignore this post completely.

 

[BroadbandGamer]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: BroadbandGamer
I just got my 2005FPW today and boy and I one happy camper. This thing is beautiful! No dead pixels and no back-light bleed. What a difference compared to my 17" 4:3. Widescreen is the only true way to game IMO. Half Life 2 looks amazing! I just wish BF2 supported native widescreen! Get the 2005, you will not regret it, plus it's a better monitor then the 2001 IMO.

:thumbsup:

One correction though, your 17" monitor was 5:4, not 4:3

Edit: Assuming you were talking about a 17" LCD. If it was a CRT, ignore this post completely.

You're correct. Thanks for the correction.

 

[dfloyd]

BF 2 does support native wide screen.

By default it has 1280 x 960 which is a 16:10 native resolution. You can also use the launch setup to change to any other res. I ran it at 1680 x 1050 for a long time. I know it does not show all resolutions in the options but it does have the 1280 x 960 and you can set any other by reading up a little on the launch parameters.

 

[gu5tav0]

Originally posted by: dfloyd
BF 2 does support native wide screen.

By default it has 1280 x 960 which is a 16:10 native resolution. You can also use the launch setup to change to any other res. I ran it at 1680 x 1050 for a long time. I know it does not show all resolutions in the options but it does have the 1280 x 960 and you can set any other by reading up a little on the launch parameters.

1280 x 960 is a 4:3 resolution which makes it perfect for 4:3 CRTs. Also, BF2 does allow for you to set custom widescreen resolutions. However, instead of giving a wider horizontal field-of-view, the result is a narrower vertical field-of-view. The correct ratio is maintained.

I guess, technically it does fully support widescreen resolutions. Unfortunately, those with a 4:3 monitor (or maybe 5:4 LCDs ... not sure) are better off because they are allowed a larger field-of-view) Whereas, in HL2, the widescreen monitor is given a larger field-of-view. It is debatable which should get the advantage.

 

[dfloyd]

Hmm I had been under the impression that 1280 x 1024 was a 4:3 resolution (Some say 4:3 some say 5:4, I think 5:4 is correct but not done the math), that and strangely 1280 x 960 looks correct when run on my widescreen where as 1280 x 768 does not (I realize its not 16:10 but being 15:9 it should be closer and look better than a 4:3 resolution), at least in BF2 and several other games.

One of the sites I was looking on when I got my info (http://www.prismo.ch/comparisons/) had apparently given me incorrect info. So 1280 x 960 is a 4:3 resolution but it is strange in how it appears to look, at least on the 2005 FPW I have. Compared to some more true wide screen resolutions.

And are you sure you do not gain any fov left to right in bf2 as I have looked at side by side screen shots and it definatly appears that you do, unless my eyes are decieving me.

 

[XBoxLPU]

1280x1024 is 5:4, 1280x960 is 4:3 but offers 81,920 fewer pixels.

 

[gu5tav0]

Originally posted by: dfloyd
And are you sure you do not gain any fov left to right in bf2 as I have looked at side by side screen shots and it definatly appears that you do, unless my eyes are decieving me.

I have never done a widescreen comparison myself but I read a THREAD over at HardForum recently.

I don't agree with people saying that BF2 does not support widescreen resolutions. It does and renders them with the correct aspect ratio. Unfortunately for widescreen gamers, they do not benefit from the widescreen resolution.

-EDIT to add link to an illustration:

IMAGE

 

[CP5670]

In general, I think widescreens are good for singleplayer gaming but bad for multiplayer gaming. The widescreen 16:10 aspect ratio is closer to your eyes' field of view than the usual 4:3 or 5:4 and works well in games that support it, but a lot of servers don't allow custom FOVs since they can give a gameplay advantage and normal FOVs on widescreens look really messed up. I would personally stick with 4:3 for maximum compatibility with multiplayer or older games.

 

[XBoxLPU]

FYI, you can change the FOV in BF2 but it doesn't seem to do anything. You wind up with the image being chopped at the bottom and top

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/fo...1079&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

 

[cptCuervo]

Just got my 2005FPW set up... my first LCD. I'm am absolutely happy with my purchase. No backlight issues, no dead pixels, and the rotation feature is great.

I fully agree with the Widescreen advocates!

 

[fstime]

I have heard many people say once you go wide screen, you dont go back.