WoW and SC2 - is a bigger monitor better or not?

[Qbah]

But then that's a shortcoming in the game, nothing to do with the monitor. The only way the 1080 can be showing the same vertically with fewer pixels in that dimension is by zooming out slightly.

Ideally the game should allow zooming in and out independent of what monitor you are using, there's no reason to tie one to the other. If the game aribtrarily ties the zoom ratio to what aspect ratio monitor you are using that's an entirely arbitrary limitation imposed by the game.

Also if your monitor allows it, there's no reason why you can't use a 16:9 ratio on a 16:10 monitor (with letterboxing). You still get the same number of pixels as on an actual 16:9 monitor.

Zoom is arbitrary in WoW. However if you make you character the same size (corrected for dimension difference), the 16:9 will display more of the world (albeit with less detail). Imagine squishing the 16:10 a bit to fit in a 16:9 screen. You will get small black bars on the sides. Or stretching the 16:9 to have the same physical height - the sides will extend outside a 16:10 screen.

And yeah, running 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 will give you a broader viewing window Makes sense to me.

EDIT: So the resolution doesn't matter. Only the aspect does - the wider it is, the more you can see.

 

[beginner99]

As far as how understood it, at least in WoW and SC2 the games always show the same amount of world vertically but with different resolutio and add as much possible to the side?

This seems more of a convention than a need (or doing something properly) since I could also say I always display the same amount horizontally and add more vertically if possible (making a tilted 16:9 the best option).

So the convention to always display the same amount of world verticaly makes a 16:9 the better choice.

I could also change the convention and say the number of pixels define the amount displayed. Then also a 4:3 could be an option because you see more vertically than on 16:10. Of course making high res screens
the best options and forcing you to buy expensive hardware.

In the end both ways are not completely fair because you don't see the same amount of world with every screen. So bascially in SC2 you have 0 chance without eyefinity, at least in high skill games?


http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=23767538736&sid=3000

 

[Chiropteran]

use some common sense if you have any. what do you think widescreen would do if its properly implemented? I sure am I glad I didnt check here before getting my monitor for gaming. 16:9 is great for gaming but half of you are too stupid to even understand the point of a wider aspect ratio.

If properly implemented, adding more screen real estate in EITHER direction would add more visible screen in the game. If adding horizontal real estate adds visible screen, but adding vertical does not, than common sense tells me the implementation is done WRONG.

What you are saying is that a 1920X1200 monitor, running in 1920X1050 mode, should show a better image than the same monitor running at it's higher native resolution. That is absurd.

 

[toyota]

If properly implemented, adding more screen real estate in EITHER direction would add more visible screen in the game. If adding horizontal real estate adds visible screen, but adding vertical does not, than common sense tells me the implementation is done WRONG.

What you are saying is that a 1920X1200 monitor, running in 1920X1050 mode, should show a better image than the same monitor running at it's higher native resolution. That is absurd.

come back when you get a freaking clue. ITS THE ASPECT RATIO NOT THE NUMBER OF PIXELS that will determine what you see on the screen within the game.

if its properly implemented the wider the aspect ratio then the more viewing area you will have on the sides from within the game. the top to bottom image will remain the same when going from 5:4 to 4:3,16:10 and so on IF its properly implemented.

 

[toyota]

even posting pics probably doesnt help but here you go. here is properly implemented widescreen from HL 2.


4:3


16:9

 

[Chiropteran]

if its properly implemented the wider the aspect ratio then the more viewing area you will have on the sides from within the game. the top to bottom image will remain the same when going from 5:4 to 4:3,16:10 and so on IF its properly implemented.

That is your opinion. Here is another opinion:

if its properly implemented the higher the aspect ratio then the more viewing area you will have in the vertical from within the game.

Why is your opinion right but this alternative one wrong? Do you have any actual evidence to support your idea, or are you just a troll?

 

[toyota]

That is your opinion. Here is another opinion:

if its properly implemented the higher the aspect ratio then the more viewing area you will have in the vertical from within the game.

Why is your opinion right but this alternative one wrong? Do you have any actual evidence to support your idea, or are you just a troll?

are you truly that ignorant? the POINT of widescreen is to add more viewing area on the sides and thats NOT my opinion. so if its properly implemented, which is usually Hor+, then you get more viewing area on the sides.

LEARN something and come back. http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/FAQ

 

[BenSkywalker]

But then that's a shortcoming in the game, nothing to do with the monitor.

That is how 3D games work, they increase pixel density with increased resolution. It gives you a sharper, cleaner image. The only way to see more of the gameworld is to increase your FoV. In WoW, vertical visibility means pretty much nothing, anyone who has ever had a ranged toon and tried to hit a mob two steps higher then them can tell you that(LoS FTL). You need to see enough vertically to avoid standing in the fire. For DPS classes tab targetting to the proper mob is a lot easier when you can see them, for tanks seeing around the mob you are tanking helps to pick up adds before they get to your healers, for healers they need the screen real estate to deal with all the mods necessary to be effective in their role.

Also if your monitor allows it, there's no reason why you can't use a 16:9 ratio on a 16:10 monitor (with letterboxing). You still get the same number of pixels as on an actual 16:9 monitor.

Doing that you get a ~22" monitor instead of a 24". Yes, it can be done- but why spend the money when the primary usage is going to benefit more from 1080 to start with?

The reason I posted the link to the comparison of monitors with the geese image on them is because it shows the differing physical dimensions of 16:10 versus 16:9. It's ~6/10ths of an inch more horizontal viewable space on a 16:9 display versus a 16:10 both at 24".

 

[Seero]

I've got a friend whom is a hardcore WoW player, and has started playing SC2. He currently has a 19" 1280x1024 LCD 4:3 screen. He plays pretty seriously, he's a competitive gamer.

I was thinking of getting him an upgrade, there are two LCD monitors on sale starting Jun 6 at Staples. They have an e-machines 21.5" 1920x1080, VGA-only, and they have a 25" 1920x1080 Hannspree with VGA and 2x HDMI (no DVI, sadly).

I was just thinking, higher resolution requires more GPU horsepower (he currently has an E5200 and a GeForce 9600GSO 96SP), but can give a wider FOV (depending on the game).
But there are perception limits, and because he sits so close to the screen (desk), a bigger screen at a higher resolution might not be as good as a smaller screen at that same higher resolution.

I have a 9800GT, with VGA, DVI, and HDMI outputs available. Do you think that this gfx card, combined with a new monitor, would be a worthy upgrade? Or would he be better off sticking with his screen?



Moved from PC Gaming

Anandtech PC Gaming Moderator
KeithTalent

WoW is a bit different than SC2. For WoW, a bigger screen helps as you can scale down UIs. I lot of UIs like DBM or healbot doesn't need high rez to be useful, thus those U.I.s can simply be scaled down along with bottons so gain more viewable space. Widescreen is useful as you can put those "party health", non-essential bars, buff bars, maps, etc on the side, given you, again, more viewable space.

SC is different as the U.I. can't be scale down yet. Even if you can scale it, the UI is mainly at the top and bottom. Widescreen don't benefit as much as a square, high rez display.

 

[Binky]

are you truly that ignorant? the POINT of widescreen is to add more viewing area on the sides and thats NOT my opinion. so if its properly implemented, which is usually Hor+, then you get more viewing area on the sides.

LEARN something and come back. http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/FAQ

Your level of insults is getting a little out of control. You are wrong, but you continue to call others stupid. Relax.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/FAQ
"1680x1050 or 1920x1200 is the ideal resolution for many."

 

[pmv]

That is how 3D games work, they increase pixel density with increased resolution. It gives you a sharper, cleaner image. The only way to see more of the gameworld is to increase your FoV. In WoW, vertical visibility means pretty much nothing, anyone who has ever had a ranged toon and tried to hit a mob two steps higher then them can tell you that(LoS FTL). You need to see enough vertically to avoid standing in the fire. For DPS classes tab targetting to the proper mob is a lot easier when you can see them, for tanks seeing around the mob you are tanking helps to pick up adds before they get to your healers, for healers they need the screen real estate to deal with all the mods necessary to be effective in their role.



Doing that you get a ~22" monitor instead of a 24". Yes, it can be done- but why spend the money when the primary usage is going to benefit more from 1080 to start with?

The reason I posted the link to the comparison of monitors with the geese image on them is because it shows the differing physical dimensions of 16:10 versus 16:9. It's ~6/10ths of an inch more horizontal viewable space on a 16:9 display versus a 16:10 both at 24".

I still don't think you are grasping the point I'm making.

Yup, the only way to see more of the gameworld is to increase your fov. But that issue is _entirely independent_ of the issue of what aspect ratio monitor you are using. You can increase your fov with a 16:10 monitor _exactly_ as much as you can with a 16:9 one. And if the 16:10 has the same number of horizontal pixels, you can increase the fov to the point where you have _the same_ fov horizontally but a greater fov vertically, for the same 'number of pixels per degree of view'.

Your second point is a slightly different issue - now you are discussing the physical size of the monitor and relative costs, which are separate issues. I don't honestly know whether 16:9 monitors are cheaper than 16:10 ones to the precise degree that they have fewer pixels. Perhaps they are.

Your argument now seems to be "I don't care about the very top and bottom of the image, so why spend money buying screen space to show that part of the gameworld?" Which might indeed be valid but just isn't the claim that started this argument (which was that you don't lose anything) and isn't the point as to why those gifs posted earlier were misleading.

Edit - to be fair, there are 3 issues here, price, physical size, and number of pixels. You might have a valid point about physical size, depending on pricing, whereas I am talking about number of pixels. Both size and pixel count matter independently.

 

[toyota]

Your level of insults is getting a little out of control. You are wrong, but you continue to call others stupid. Relax.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/FAQ
"1680x1050 or 1920x1200 is the ideal resolution for many."

just goes to show how ignorant you honestly are. that article was written before 16:9 pc desktop monitors where even really in the market and that part was never updated. I guess if I find an old article that says a fast single core cpu is best for gaming then that will apply to now too?

Please take it down a notch.

-ViRGE

 

[beginner99]

come back when you get a freaking clue. ITS THE ASPECT RATIO NOT THE NUMBER OF PIXELS that will determine what you see on the screen within the game.

if its properly implemented the wider the aspect ratio then the more viewing area you will have on the sides from within the game. the top to bottom image will remain the same when going from 5:4 to 4:3,16:10 and so on IF its properly implemented.

I see your point, still this remains nothing else than 1 of multiple possible implementations.

And as you can read in my link it's the cheapest possible way. Just give people with the right monitor (hardware) an unfair advantage. In a game like SC2 which basically is only about multi-player, i don't think this is a very good approach.
5:4 screens should see more vertically than a 16:9 because the 16:9 sees more horizontally. Then it's to some point fair again because the total Area of your FOV is about equal.
But with the current Implementation I don't think you will ever have a chance against someone with a HD5870 and 3 screens even if he is a worse player overall. (of course it won't help a complete Newbie).

So SC2 players, don't buy nv cards and save some $$$ for 3 16:9 screens.

 

[NoQuarter]

I still don't think you are grasping the point I'm making.

Yup, the only way to see more of the gameworld is to increase your fov. But that issue is _entirely independent_ of the issue of what aspect ratio monitor you are using. You can increase your fov with a 16:10 monitor _exactly_ as much as you can with a 16:9 one. And if the 16:10 has the same number of horizontal pixels, you can increase the fov to the point where you have _the same_ fov horizontally but a greater fov vertically, for the same 'number of pixels per degree of view'.

Yes, what you are describing would be considered a Vert- game engine. When going from 16:9 to 16:10 adds more to the top (Vert+), is looked at from the reverse, 16:10 to a wider 16:9 you are removing from the top (Vert-).

The reason this is disliked is because if you vert- it out you end up with a dismal view of the world the wider your screen gets. If you started from an old 4:3 AR and vert- it out to widescreen the game would be unplayable. Hor+/- games would be unplayable if anyone played in portrait, but no one does and what you're arguing for is a vert+ approach that would be nice for the 0 people who play in portrait and unplayable for anyone the wider their screen gets.

You need a basic amount of vertical FOV and horizontal FOV to play a game, a square accommodates this and is the starting point for adding/removing to your field of view. 16:10 is wider than a square and 16:9 is wider than that. It would be bizarre for a game to be hor+ from 4:3 to 16:10 then switch to vert- to 16:9. It's already a mess that Unreal Engine is hor+ from 4:3 to 16:9 then vert- beyond that.

The issues are:
a) vertical space has very limited usefulness unless you want to see even more of the sky and your feet.
b) human eyes have a wide horizontal field of vision and not so much vertical field of vision.

So.. in the end vert- hurts widescreen players and vert+ helps no one, and all games should be hor+/hor-.

 

[NoQuarter]

I see your point, still this remains nothing else than 1 of multiple possible implementations.

And as you can read in my link it's the cheapest possible way. Just give people with the right monitor (hardware) an unfair advantage. In a game like SC2 which basically is only about multi-player, i don't think this is a very good approach.
5:4 screens should see more vertically than a 16:9 because the 16:9 sees more horizontally. Then it's to some point fair again because the total Area of your FOV is about equal.
But with the current Implementation I don't think you will ever have a chance against someone with a HD5870 and 3 screens even if he is a worse player overall. (of course it won't help a complete Newbie).

So SC2 players, don't buy nv cards and save some $$$ for 3 16:9 screens.

The solution is to have a 'tournament' setting that locks the resolution to a limited AR. It's ridiculous to stunt both hardware innovation and gaming experience to maintain fairness. Otherwise we should be locked to 4:3 ratio, no high precision mice (automatically reduces your precision to a ball mouse), no surround sound, and fps locked to the lowest player.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

toyota has argued this in many other threads in the past, and he gets hot-headed so fast it seems apparent he's arguing in support of his choice of monitor.

There is *no* reason a *properly* implemented game engine would not allow me to see the exact same picture on my 16:10 monitor as you see on your 16:9 monitor if I tell it to use a different resolution. The *only* thing you can argue in that regard is pixel pitch. And when it seems that most people on the 16:9 side of this argument tend to be the ones that say they like smaller pixel pitch, then that means that argument is moot or a purposeful straw man.

[EDIT: OK, I did leave out the other "only" argument, which is the desirability of letter-boxing. But that is so entirely subjective that it has no place in an argument that talks about "properly implemented" in any way, shape or form.]

1920 x 1080 is a subset of 1920 x 1200. My monitor can display your full monitor, *and more*. End of story.

Now whether games appropriately allow that choice, is a different argument. But the "properly implemented" has been trotted out so much in this thread that it's an utter canard to think that "properly implemented" game engines wouldn't allow a larger resolution monitor to perfectly display everything that a smaller resolution monitor displays.

Let me say it again, your monitor fits inside my monitor.

 

[toyota]

toyota has argued this in many other threads in the past, and he gets hot-headed so fast it seems apparent he's arguing in support of his choice of monitor.

There is *no* reason a *properly* implemented game engine would not allow me to see the exact same picture on my 16:10 monitor as you see on your 16:9 monitor if I tell it to use a different resolution. The *only* thing you can argue in that regard is pixel pitch. And when it seems that most people on the 16:9 side of this argument tend to be the ones that say they like smaller pixel pitch, then that means that argument is moot or a purposeful straw man.

1920 x 1080 is a subset of 1920 x 1200. My monitor can display your full monitor, *and more*. End of story.

Now whether games appropriately allow that choice, is a different argument. But the "properly implemented" has been trotted out so much in this thread that it's an utter canard to think that "properly implemented" game engines wouldn't allow a larger resolution monitor to perfectly display everything that a smaller resolution monitor displays.

Let me say it again, your monitor fits inside my monitor.

I am not defending my monitor at all. I said the same thing even before I owned it plus I still have other monitors. what I mean by properly implemented is adding just more to the sides which is the WHOLE POINT of widescreen. basically every game being made in the last few years gets it right so if a rare exception happens then anybody with common sense would call that poorly implemented. hor+ is basically ideal and is the most common used in properly implemented widescreen. whether you can display some 1920x1080 info on your 1920x1200 monitor with black bars or some type of distortion has nothing to do with what I have been saying this whole time.

ALL I have been saying is that the aspect ratio determines what you see in a game not the number of pixels. again if its using proper widescreen implementation then it will simply add more to the sides in a game the wider the aspect ration. anything else you want to argue doesnt change that fact.

 

[NoQuarter]

1920 x 1080 is a subset of 1920 x 1200. My monitor can display your full monitor, *and more*. End of story.

Here is the problem. Field of view does not care about resolution at all, it cares about aspect ratio, and in this regard 16:10 is a subset of 16:9 because the starting point is 4:3 (16:12). A 1366x768 monitor will show the same at a 1920x1080 monitor because they have the same AR even though you can fit the smaller right in the middle of the larger and a 1920x1200 would show the same as a 2560x1600 monitor or a 320x200 monitor.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Here is the problem. Field of view does not care about resolution at all, it cares about aspect ratio, and in this regard 16:10 is a subset of 16:9 because the starting point is 4:3

I'm telling you that I can display a 1920x1080 game on my 1920x1200 monitor and the game should display the same FOV and resolution, everything that it's showing on your 16:9 monitor if I tell the game to run at 1920x1080. I'll just see black bars, which I don't mind, because when I turn off the game I have 120 more vertical pixels than you do for everything else I do.

ALL I have been saying is that the aspect ratio determines what you see in a game not the number of pixels. again if its using proper widescreen implementation then it will simply add more to the sides in a game the wider the aspect ration. anything else you want to argue doesnt change that fact.

This argument is about the desirability of 16:9 vs 16:10 24" monitors. At least that's where it started in this thread. My monitor can do what your monitor does, and more. End of story. I don't need any other facts. The price I pay is black bars. Uh... not really a price IMO.

I get what you're saying (that you like to say over and over and over and over). FOV and wide(r) horizontal resolution, seeing more of the game etc. etc. You're missing the point that I can make my monitor show me exactly, pixel for pixel, degrees of visibility FOV-wise in-game, as you see on your monitor. If I choose to game at 16:10 and lose the FOV to get some more sharpness to the overall image then I can do that. You can't. If all you do on your 16:9 monitor is game, and you absolutely want the wider FOV that 16:9 gives you, then good for you. You paid a bit less for a monitor that exactly fits your wants/needs. But you preach it like the gospel that it isn't.

 

[toyota]

I'm telling you that I can display a 1920x1080 game on my 1920x1200 monitor and the game should display the same FOV and resolution, everything that it's showing on your 16:9 monitor if I tell the game to run at 1920x1080. I'll just see black bars, which I don't mind, because when I turn off the game I have 120 more vertical pixels than you do for everything else I do.



This argument is about the desirability of 16:9 vs 16:10 24" monitors. At least that's where it started in this thread. My monitor can do what your monitor does, and more. End of story. I don't need any other facts. The price I pay is black bars. Uh... not really a price IMO.

I get what you're saying (that you like to say over and over and over and over). FOV and wide(r) horizontal resolution, seeing more of the game etc. etc. You're missing the point that I can make my monitor show me exactly, pixel for pixel, degrees of visibility FOV-wise in-game, as you see on your monitor. If I choose to game at 16:10 and lose the FOV to get some more sharpness to the overall image then I can do that. You can't. If all you do on your 16:9 monitor is game, and you absolutely want the wider FOV that 16:9 gives you, then good for you. You paid a bit less for a monitor that exactly fits your wants/needs. But you preach it like the gospel that it isn't.

you misinterpreted my point. people can get whatever monitors they want. I wont enter a debate about what size or exactly what res but I will make recommendation from time to time especially if I see somebody still using that horrible 1280x1024 res. if every 16:9 game just simply added black bars then I likely would have gone with a 16:10 monitor. personally though I had trouble getting some games to work perfectly in a 16:9 aspect ratio on my 16:10 res monitor that I owned or even other 16:10 monitors that I tried out. some games just didnt give a 100% accurate image and looked slightly distorted.


anyway the ONLY reason I got in this thread is because some people think its the number of pixels that determine the view when its actually the aspect ratio.

 

[NoQuarter]

I'm telling you that I can display a 1920x1080 game on my 1920x1200 monitor and the game should display the same FOV and resolution, everything that it's showing on your 16:9 monitor if I tell the game to run at 1920x1080. I'll just see black bars, which I don't mind, because when I turn off the game I have 120 more vertical pixels than you do for everything else I do.

Oops, sorry I thought you were arguing the resolution = field of view position, missed a few key words. I agree any monitor with more pixels than the next is better.

 

[Qbah]

Yes, what you are describing would be considered a Vert- game engine. When going from 16:9 to 16:10 adds more to the top (Vert+), is looked at from the reverse, 16:10 to a wider 16:9 you are removing from the top (Vert-).

The reason this is disliked is because if you vert- it out you end up with a dismal view of the world the wider your screen gets. If you started from an old 4:3 AR and vert- it out to widescreen the game would be unplayable. Hor+/- games would be unplayable if anyone played in portrait, but no one does and what you're arguing for is a vert+ approach that would be nice for the 0 people who play in portrait and unplayable for anyone the wider their screen gets.

You need a basic amount of vertical FOV and horizontal FOV to play a game, a square accommodates this and is the starting point for adding/removing to your field of view. 16:10 is wider than a square and 16:9 is wider than that. It would be bizarre for a game to be hor+ from 4:3 to 16:10 then switch to vert- to 16:9. It's already a mess that Unreal Engine is hor+ from 4:3 to 16:9 then vert- beyond that.

The issues are:
a) vertical space has very limited usefulness unless you want to see even more of the sky and your feet.
b) human eyes have a wide horizontal field of vision and not so much vertical field of vision.

So.. in the end vert- hurts widescreen players and vert+ helps no one, and all games should be hor+/hor-.

I would say this post pretty much describes everything

However, there's also a very different approach, where the resolution determines the viewable area - the more pixels your screen can display, the more you can see. In this case, a 1920x1200 would show more than a 1920x1080, obviously. And 1280x1024 would show more than 1024x768. There were games like that in the past and a lot of them - most RTS games, BG series etc. I understand why it was like that (those games were made out of sprites - fixed elements) - I would say this is why quite a few people still connect view area with resolution

 

[beginner99]

The solution is to have a 'tournament' setting that locks the resolution to a limited AR. It's ridiculous to stunt both hardware innovation and gaming experience to maintain fairness. Otherwise we should be locked to 4:3 ratio, no high precision mice (automatically reduces your precision to a ball mouse), no surround sound, and fps locked to the lowest player.

Does SC2 have such a setting? I don't know.

I agree it can't be 100% fair but it should at least not be completely unfair as 16:9 vs 5:4 will be.
I already hear ppl with no clue and 5:4 screen on bnet:
"You goddamn hacker your units moved before you could see the shuttle."
Well mate, he did see it on his 16:9 just you can't in the replay.
(assuming replays also show FOV depending an AR, interesting anyone tried that?)

 

[A_Dying_Wren]

Assuming toyota et al are right (as much as it pains me to say as he has been incredibly rude and obnoxious. seriously, where are the mods in this forum?), that 1920*1200 screen may perhaps be better for fps where 1920*1080 may be better for rts. My reason for saying this is that For the portion of the game shown in a 1920*1200 screen, the 1920*1080 screen will only allocate 1728 * 1080 pixels for that same image for 92 more horizontal pixels' worth of information on the sides. For an fps where the area around the reticule is of greatest importance, the higher resolution of that image (I'm guessing) may help whereas in rts, that 92 more pixels saves you a little bit of scrolling.

This is just my hypothesis at the moment but I'm fairly certain at least you'll be getting a greater resolution image of slightly less content with 1920*1200 as compared to 1920*1080.

I never understood the attraction nor ever played mmorpgs so I won't comment there.

 

[Stoneburner]

ALL I have been saying is that the aspect ratio determines what you see in a game not the number of pixels. again if its using proper widescreen implementation then it will simply add more to the sides in a game the wider the aspect ration. anything else you want to argue doesnt change that fact.

So you'll see more in a 1366 x 768 screen than a 1920 x 1200?

I've tried to find evidence of your position but have been unsuccessful. I've tried to get my head around the concept of less pixels showing more, but it defies common sense.

I will have to assume you don't mean to post any of this but have been the victim of unintended keyboard acceleration.