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

[ViRGE]

yeah I lot of old games just stretched the image or in some cases did chop of some height for widescreen. nowadays that just doesnt happen and if does like in the case of Bioshock and Far Cry 2 its properly fixed as soon as possible. Valve has always had the perfect widescreen formula on the Source engine which is Hor+. http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4060

The only problem with Hor+ is that it requires a fixed vertical FOV but a variable horizontal FOV. This isn't necessarily desirable if you want a narrow horizontal FOV (mainly for suspenseful games where you don't want the player easily seeing around themselves). It's very much situational depending on the game.

And then there are MP games, and that's a whole different can of worms. It would seem more balanced to have a fixed horizontal FOV on a RTS like SC2 (or the other SC2), but that's just me.

 

[BenSkywalker]

But in using side-by-side monitors vs stacked monitors you are keeping constant the total number of pixels. Which isn't what we are talking about.

You are reducing the physical size of the screen on a horizontal basis when comparing the two. When talking about WoW, I would much rather have a larger horizontal viewing area.

LOL, a fixed 1080P video on a 16x10 screen is not the same as a video game that adapts to any screen resolution you throw at it.

Wow, really? What a shocker. I put up that link so that people could see the physical differences in screen size.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I think people are confusing desktop resolution (with variable work space) to gaming resolution (with variable image quality).

In WoW you are dealing with both IQ and 'workspace'. Running a window for combat log, RCchat, GChat, Omen, DMGMeter, Grid/Cliq/Healbot, Decursive, CTRaid etc- higher resolution lets you fit more on the screen using less space then lower resolutions. Getting the same tools working on a lower resolution screen makes them extremely difficult to use.

If we consider it OK to reduce that scaling then the 16:10 monitor could do exactly the same and end up with the same FOV as the 16::9 horizontally but a greater one vertically.

OK, when are the extra vertical pixels valuable in WoW? The only encounter I can really think of that it would have come in handy was Kael'Thas back in TBC versus every encounter benefitting from a wider viewing angle(although the pixel count is the same, 16:9 is physically wider).

 

[0roo0roo]

thread filled with

 

[MagickMan]

You are reducing the physical size of the screen on a horizontal basis when comparing the two. When talking about WoW, I would much rather have a larger horizontal viewing area.

Maybe if you're a healer and you have a massive amount of addons and raid frames cluttering the sides. I'm not. I run a very small Grid layout, Omen, and Recount. As DPS, I prefer the screen to be a little taller, 16:10 is perfect.

 

[pmv]

I think that gif of SC2 is very accurate. It is proving the game was designed with 16:9 in mind. It has nothing to do with how many pixels there are, or the image physically changing size. That gif is simply there to show field of vision, in which it clearly shows 16:9 has the advantage. If you can't see that 4:3, 16:10, and 16:9 are all clearly showing the same exact information in height, while the wider aspect ratios show more to the side, you haven't looked at the gif hard enough. 16:9 may end up with fewer pixels, but it is clearly showing more of the map at once because it doesn't sacrifice any vertical image space, it simply increases the width.

I know, I know, this is a pointless argument. But people keep getting this wrong and I feel like arguing, so there.

If you can't see what's wrong with those gifs then you haven't looked hard enough. They use the same vertical resolution, which is NOT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. In reality you LOSE resolution vertically. You keen banging on about showing more of the map, that's not the point, the point is NOT about how much of the scene you see, the point is it does so at the expense of fine-grain-detail resolution in the vertical direction.

The image will be less sharp vertically as it will be using fewer pixels to cover the same viewing area. Why do people find this so hard to grasp?

Whatever aspect ratio monitor you have you can always include more of the scene by reducing the ability to show small detail (i.e. having a larger viewing angle for the same number of pixels). That has nothing to do with the topic.


The problem is people are confusing 'resolution' with 'field of view', When I say 'less resolution vertically' that has nothing to do with what the field of view vertically is. It means _fewer pixels_. Which can either mean a smaller angle of view or it can mean loss of detail, but it has to be one or the other. Either way there is a LOSS.

 

[Hacp]

unless this game is weird its not going to matter. its the aspect ratio NOT the amount of pixels that determine what you see on the screen. so yes someone running 1024x768 will see the exact same info on the screen as someone running 1600x1200.

Totally wrong. It depends on the game. I can't believe how misinformed some people can be.

 

[toyota]

Totally wrong. It depends on the game. I can't believe how misinformed some people can be.

oh yes because you have all the correct info and I am just misinformed? half the geniuses in this thread think they have more viewing height within the game because of how many pixels they have. lol

for the 100th freaking time IF a game is PROPERLY setup for widescreen it will simply add MORE to the sides the wider the aspect ratio.

 

[Hacp]

oh yes because you have all the correct info and I am just misinformed? half the geniuses in this thread think they have more viewing height within the game because of how many pixels they have. lol

for the 100th freaking time IF a game is PROPERLY setup for widescreen it will simply add MORE to the sides the wider the aspect ratio.

Why would game developers do that when they can just add more pixels to the bottom? Again, it depends on the game. In cases where giving you the extra pixels will harm competitive play, then that may be the case. Otherwise, developers can do whatever the hell they want.If you don't understand that, I don't know what to say.

 

[Chiropteran]

for the 100th freaking time IF a game is PROPERLY setup for widescreen it will simply add MORE to the sides the wider the aspect ratio.

Properly, according to who? You?

 

[toyota]

Properly, according to who? You?

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.

 

[zebrax2]

I agree with Hacp. It depends on the game. For competitive games aspect ratio scaling is really important so not to give edge to persons with large monitors but on the other hand there is no reason to scale according to aspect ratio rather than just increasing the fov in accordance with the resolution in an SP game (unless it is of artistic value) eg. RPG games

 

[MagickMan]

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.

Are you really trying to get banned for insults, or are you just lacking in all common sense? You've gotten yourself in a lather over nothing.

Some people don't want a wider display ratio for gaming. Movies, yes. Gaming, no. Done.

 

[toyota]

Are you really trying to get banned for insults, or are you just lacking in all common sense? You've gotten yourself in a lather over nothing.

Some people don't want a wider display ratio for gaming. Movies, yes. Gaming, no. Done.

the guy made a ridiculous comment. of course the point of widescreen is to just add more to that sides so yes anyone with any common sense would know that. games are just like movies in that a wider fov of view is more immersive. basically all newer games are properly set up for widescreen when they are developed. so yes in the end a wider aspect simply gives you more on the sides in modern games and doesnt detract form anything. if you dont want that extra bit on sides thats great and you can can get what ever monitor you want but that doesnt change the fact this is how properly done widescreen is implemented.

thank goodness at least some people in this thread get it.

 

[MagickMan]

Properly, according to who? You?

According to the people who established 16:9 as the "international standard format of HDTV"... which is ironic since even the most narrow of modern film ratios, 1.85:1, still doesn't fill the entire display and leaves a slight letterbox. 1.78:1 is a "compromise ratio", and not a very good one, at that.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Maybe if you're a healer and you have a massive amount of addons and raid frames cluttering the sides. I'm not. I run a very small Grid layout, Omen, and Recount. As DPS, I prefer the screen to be a little taller, 16:10 is perfect.

I have a couple DPS toons too, what advantage does extra vertical resolution give you? Actually, my main since vanilla WoW has been a mage, I still am absolutely partial to a wider FoV.

which is ironic since even the most narrow of modern film ratios, 1.85:1, still doesn't fill the entire displayp.

So what is Avatar, a golden oldie? 16:9 is iMax standard. The most modern films are 16:9, everything else is a compromise in cinema today.

 

[pmv]

oh yes because you have all the correct info and I am just misinformed? half the geniuses in this thread think they have more viewing height within the game because of how many pixels they have. lol

for the 100th freaking time IF a game is PROPERLY setup for widescreen it will simply add MORE to the sides the wider the aspect ratio.

For the 100th time, if the 'widescreen' is achieved by reducing the number of pixels vertically, rather than increasing the number horizontally, then the game can only do what you describe by zooming out, i.e. reducing the level of detail visible. You could equally well zoom out to the exact same extent with a 16:10 monitor, and hence equal the 16:9 in terms of what you see at the side while _also_ showing more at the top and bottom.

1600x1200 is simply always better than 1600x1050, it will always show more of the scene FOR A PARTICULAR "ZOOM" LEVEL. The only way the latter can 'show more at the sides while showing the same at top/bottom' is by changing that level and losing fine grain detail instead.

(Granted, one advantage 1050 might have is that as its the standard for HDTV such monitors might end up cheaper because of economies of scale).

Edit - the above is of course subject to the game actually handling different fov's properly.

another edit - no idea why I typed entirely the wrong numbers above. 1600x1050 isn't even a proper resolution.

 

[pmv]

Deleted by poster for being pointlessly confrontational.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Granted, one advantage 1050 might have is that as its the standard for HDTV such monitors might end up cheaper because of economies of scale

Why would these 1050 displays you talk about benefit from TVs in any way? I can't recall ever having seen a 1050 TV.

1600x1200 is simply always better than 1600x1050

1680x1050>>>>2048x1536 in WoW, by a *long* shot. I have a 2141SB-BK on the desk next to me, and an old POS 22" LCD and for use in WoW it wasn't even close.

 

[pmv]

Why would these 1050 displays you talk about benefit from TVs in any way? I can't recall ever having seen a 1050 TV.



1680x1050>>>>2048x1536 in WoW, by a *long* shot. I have a 2141SB-BK on the desk next to me, and an old POS 22" LCD and for use in WoW it wasn't even close.

You have me on the first one, I'm fouling up the relevant resolutions. I am attempting to talk about 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 and getting the numbers completely muddled up.

I'm not clear what you are saying in the second point.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I'm not clear what you are saying in the second point.

You stated that 1600x1200 is always better then 1600x1050. I was pointing out that *any* 4:3 resolution is inferior to widescreen for WoW, I have the best 4:3 computer monitor ever made sitting next to me and it is *clearly* inferior for playing WoW when when going against some random cheap POS widescreen display. The horizontal real estate is significantly more important in WoW then vertical.

 

[pmv]

You stated that 1600x1200 is always better then 1600x1050. I was pointing out that *any* 4:3 resolution is inferior to widescreen for WoW, I have the best 4:3 computer monitor ever made sitting next to me and it is *clearly* inferior for playing WoW when when going against some random cheap POS widescreen display. The horizontal real estate is significantly more important in WoW then vertical.

Well that's my fault then for typing entirely the wrong numbers (don't know why I typed 1600). Given that, I did indeed type nonsense. I'm not talking about 4:3.

I _meant_ to say 1920x1200 is better than 1920x1080. Because even if you prefer a 16:9 ratio you can always fit a 1920x1080 image in a 1920x1200 display (and then add a bit of extra view at the top and bottom, which you can just not look at if it bothers you).

 

[Qbah]

You have me on the first one, I'm fouling up the relevant resolutions. I am attempting to talk about 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 and getting the numbers completely muddled up.

I'm not clear what you are saying in the second point.

He's saying that both x1050 and x1536 in WoW show the same amount of world vertically. x1536 just shows it sharper. A 16:10 (1680x1050) screen is thus better than a 4:3 (2048x1536) as it shows you more world and also has space on the sides for stuff.

 

[imaheadcase]

Try playing a blu ray on a monitor not 1900x1200 vs 1900x1080. You will be like What is wrong with my screen?!. lol

The difference is the 1900x1200 can scale prop with games vs a x1080. That graph he posted is not accurate, since every monitor uses scaling so you don't see black bars. However movies you see what you get unless you want to stretch it to make it look worse.

x1200 monitors are more expensive for a reason than 1080. 1080 is commonly referred to as "The poor mans 24 inch".

 

[Qbah]

Well that's my fault then for typing entirely the wrong numbers (don't know why I typed 1600). Given that, I did indeed type nonsense. I'm not talking about 4:3.

I _meant_ to say 1920x1200 is better than 1920x1080. Because even if you prefer a 16:9 ratio you can always fit a 1920x1080 image in a 1920x1200 display (and then add a bit of extra view at the top and bottom, which you can just not look at if it bothers you).

Again, that's not how it works in this game either. A x1080 and x1200 will show the same world vertically and because of that the 1920x1080 screen will give you more space horizontally. You will see more and have a bit more space for things.

 

[pmv]

Again, that's not how it works in this game either. A x1080 and x1200 will show the same world vertically and because of that the 1920x1080 screen will give you more space horizontally. You will see more and have a bit more space for things.

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.