34" Ultrawide isn't THAT amazing...

[DoubleTap]

I couldn't do it. I was glad to drop down to 4K and not deal with fisheye and the other bullshit that goes with surround gaming. I'd rather have 60FPS with max eye candy than 100+ FPS with medium settings.

I just tried a TDM level (the one with the dense European town houses) on ultra and got about 45fps on average. Dropping to High put it at about 50 or 52. On FAO Fortress it was more like 52-70 on Ultra.

It's playable at those settings, but it's much more enjoyable to me at >80 fps.

 

[Dan_D]

I can't look at shitty medium quality textures.

 

[DoubleTap]

I can't look at shitty medium quality textures.

Skimping on textures don't make a lot of difference in performance so you keep those at high/ultra - it's usually terrain, lighting, shadows, occlusion, effects and AA tend to eat more fps than they give in IQ - every game is different. The great thing about my system is that between IQ, FPS and 1vs3 screens, I can pick any two. For another $700, I can have all 3, all the time.

 

[elvn]

I'll go to very high, or very high+ ("ultra minus" if you prefer) as necessary to achieve a target of at least 100fps-hz average. Noone wants to play in mud but the graphics ceiling cut off at the very top of the highest ranges of settings is an arbitrary cut off point set by devs anyway.

By the end of 2017 we will not only have dp 1.4 3440x1440 144hz and 4k 144hz with very low response time, modern gaming overdrive, g-sync/variable hz.. We will also have few 4k 144hz low response time, modern gaming overdrive g-sync monitors with 1000nit peak brightness, 384 zone FALD (full array local dimming backlight), HDR gaming monitors. So the list of features that make a modern, full featured gaming monitor will go up even higher. 60hz and low frame rate is well below the bar. It may be "good enough" for some people, but it's inferior. The first 120hz lcd gaming monitors came out in 2009.

Motion clarity (appreciable blur reduction), and Motion definition increase are very aesthetic qualities. Parroting that it is just for twitch gaming is a falsehood.
Screen shot stills make for pretty wallpaper but it's hard to show people what they are missing in motion clarity (blur reduction) and greater motion definition (path articulation, entire viewport smoothness in 1st/3rd person mouse-look and movement keying, more 'dots per dotted line/shaped path') vs low fps and low hz. In 1st/3rd person games not only individual virtual objects but the entire game world is moving in relation to you.

There are 21:9 3440 x 1400 and 4k 144hz monitors due out this year since monitors will finally start being made with dp 1.4

It's glaringly obvious when you experience better, and regardless of opinion - 60hz and low fps are measurably inferior. The 4k and 21:9 crowd just hasn't had any choice in the matter until later this year when 144hz dp 1.4 versions of 4k and 21:9 monitors come out.

However, keep in mind: High hz is meaningless unless you feed it new, unique frames of action. We are just getting to the point (since titan pascal, and now with 1080ti) where on the most demanding games a top end single gpu can do 100fps-hz average or so at 2560 x1440, sometimes requiring some features to be turned off in the game settings at that. And that is an average in a sort of vibrating blend +/- 30fps all over the place seconds to seconds so has half of the mix being 70 to 100 or so depending on the game(see example graph). You don't get really appreciable blur reduction and motion definition increases until you are around at least 100fps-hz (fps and hz) average so much below that you are getting no appreciable benefit out of a high hz monitor even if it was 300hz. Some old source games and other simpler games and some isometrics can get well over 200fps average though of course. https://i.imgur.com/ALY9lQS.png

By the end of 2017 we will not only have dp 1.4 3440x1440 144hz and 4k 144hz with very low response time, modern gaming overdrive, g-sync/variable hz.. We will also have few 4k 144hz low response time, modern gaming overdrive g-sync monitors with 1000nit peak brightness, 384 zone FALD (full array local dimming backlight), HDR gaming monitors. So the list of features that make a modern, full featured gaming monitor will go up even higher. 60hz and low frame rate is well below the bar. It may be "good enough" for some people, but it's inferior. The first 120hz lcd gaming monitors came out in 2009.

 

[elvn]

superultra wide

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/35.htm

These are 41" and 49" in size and a very, very wide 32:9 aspect ratio and FHD+ resolution as it is listed in the spec (not sure what that actually is although possibly 3840 x 1080)! Whether they will be used as monitor panels or not is questionable given the format but they were listed in the roadmap with other monitor modules. They have an 1800R curvature according to the preliminary specs. Finally Samsung have a 31.5" sized panel coming in Q3 also with a whopping 8K4K (7680 x 4320) resolution and Adobe RGB colour space coverage which clearly positions it as a premium professional grade panel.

Example appearance of the curve of the 49" 32:9 aspect ratio panels with 1800R curvature from 65cm viewing distance

Example appearance of the curve of the 49" 32:9 aspect ratio panels with 1800R curvature from 65cm viewing distance

 

[Armenius]

Higher FoV values only look distorted when the game FoV is too high relative to how much of your actual vision the display fills.
If you have a much larger display, and are still sitting close to it, proportionally higher FoV values should not look distorted.

This GIF shows how higher FoV does not distort the image, so long as display size increases with it.
The issue is that you may be limited by how high you can set the FoV, while ultrawides can often go beyond a game's limits if they are vertical FoV controls.

The question is how comfortably can you sit to a big 16:9 display?
I thought I was pretty close, being about 3ft from a 46" TV, but I'm now about 1ft from this 34" ultrawide, which is still comfortable to me.
I don't think I would be comfortable sitting that close to a 36" or larger 16:9 display. I'd probably want to push it back.

34" ultrawide seems to be the sweet-spot for monitor sizes.
Any bigger and you have to sit further; which means that the screen doesn't fill any more of your vision.
Maybe if they did screens that were curved in both dimensions it would work, but it seems like they're stopping producing curved TVs.

Well if you're only talking about the center monitor in a multi-monitor setup, you don't have to turn your head if you are looking at a centered window on an ultrawide either.
I don't see what the difference is, other than not having bezels on the ultrawide.


I had always heard that window managers were a lot better on Linux actually, so that's surprising to hear.

Not all games properly adjust aspect ratio and focal point when adjusting the FOV like the example you give. Whatever game is being shown is properly adjusting all the variables to properly set the viewing frustum, avoiding the fisheye.

I think Ultrawide is great on some games poor on others. It looks incredible on games like Witcher 3, but on games like Overwatch it is just not that great. I will be going back to 2 16:9 displays though this year mainly because the multi tasking on ultrawide doesn't compare to having 2 displays even with software that divides the screen. I will probably end up getting a PG27VQ (27"/165hz/1440/Quantum Dot/G-Sync) as my next primary display, then use a smaller display to manage media while gaming. I'll probably put the X34 on my workstation since it is actually decent for what I use the system for.

It's not great in Overwatch because Blizzard deliberately set the viewing frustum to vert- instead of hor+ because they think the latter would give an unfair advantage. If I'm not mistaken, I think they now give you three options for 21:9: pillar boxed, stretched or vert-.

 

[Dan_D]

Not supporting proper FOV adjustments that "could" give some players and advantage has been EA's mantra from the onset of 16:9 popularity. I believe Blizzard said the same shit about StarCraft 2 and as a result I'm not surprised Overwatch is similarly gimped.

 

[ziocomposite]

It's so dumb though. I'm surprised they don't limit the game to 60hz and have everyone play on the same settings lol

Not supporting proper FOV adjustments that "could" give some players and advantage has been EA's mantra from the onset of 16:9 popularity. I believe Blizzard said the same shit about StarCraft 2 and as a result I'm not surprised Overwatch is similarly gimped.

 

[refraxion]

Not supporting proper FOV adjustments that "could" give some players and advantage has been EA's mantra from the onset of 16:9 popularity. I believe Blizzard said the same shit about StarCraft 2 and as a result I'm not surprised Overwatch is similarly gimped.

Wait, hasn't EA been allowing proper 21:9 support for their games? atleast in BF4/BF1. Unless I'm misunderstanding your post

 

[Dan_D]

Wait, hasn't EA been allowing proper 21:9 support for their games? atleast in BF4/BF1. Unless I'm misunderstanding your post

I do not know. I've never tried it as I don't have a 21:9 display.

 

[Phlorge]

Wait, hasn't EA been allowing proper 21:9 support for their games? atleast in BF4/BF1. Unless I'm misunderstanding your post

EA games support ultrawide.

overwatch sadly does not

 

[XBarbarian]

WoW does, luckily, as that's the game I still play the most currently.

 

[elvn]

It's been years since I played WoW but I do remember that mods allowed you to make the extensive action bars and hud elements completely modular and configurable in size and orientation, stacking, etc. The game "Rift" in the same genre was dev'd that way by default. Idk why more games don't do that out of the box. It's a simple tetris overlay scheme. This kind of thing is especially annoying in console ports sometimes.

I've seen Team Fortress 2 , Diablo III, witcher 3, etc. in widescreen in images and vids among other games. WSGforum.com as a huge spreadsheet list of games with widescreen support listed defined by default, by ini/tweaks, windowed mode, and also by whether it stretches. Flawlesswidescreen fixer fixes a lot of games aspect ratios too (e.g. shadow of mordor).

WoW mods also allowed you to increase the view distance and zoom-out by a large amount, with animated objects in the distance as well (not just geography and buildings). This makes a huge difference and would be a huge benefit to large screen users by adding a lot of game world real-estate instead of just making the same 16:9 scene giant on a wall. It's too bad dev's don't let you do this in games by default. Note that it can increase the demand on the gpu considerably though which is why games use view distance cutoffs and tricks in the first place.

Unfortunately the more cutthroat cock fight/laser-tag arena games usually don't allow any of this. For single player gameplay I wish a lot more did. For multiplayer gameplay the browser could just checkbox different game types/restrictions the same way it does hardcore mode, etc.

Widescreengamingforum Wsgf.org master list - by release date, newest first

Widescreengaming forum - main site

Flawless Widescreen - Gaming the way it should be! flawlesswidescreen.org

 

[XBarbarian]

It's been years since I played WoW but I do remember that mods allowed you to make the extensive action bars and hud elements completely modular and configurable in size and orientation, stacking, etc. The game "Rift" in the same genre was dev'd that way by default. Idk why more games don't do that out of the box. It's a simple tetris overlay scheme. This kind of thing is especially annoying in console ports sometimes.

I've seen Team Fortress 2 , Diablo III, witcher 3, etc. in widescreen in images and vids among other games. WSGforum.com as a huge spreadsheet list of games with widescreen support listed defined by default, by ini/tweaks, windowed mode, and also by whether it stretches. Flawlesswidescreen fixer fixes a lot of games aspect ratios too (e.g. shadow of mordor).

WoW mods also allowed you to increase the view distance and zoom-out by a large amount, with animated objects in the distance as well (not just geography and buildings). This makes a huge difference and would be a huge benefit to large screen users by adding a lot of game world real-estate instead of just making the same 16:9 scene giant on a wall. It's too bad dev's don't let you do this in games by default. Note that it can increase the demand on the gpu considerably though which is why games use view distance cutoffs and tricks in the first place.

Unfortunately the more cutthroat cock fight/laser-tag arena games usually don't allow any of this. For single player gameplay I wish a lot more did. For multiplayer gameplay the browser could just checkbox different game types/restrictions the same way it does hardcore mode, etc.

Widescreengamingforum Wsgf.org master list - by release date, newest first

Widescreengaming forum - main site

Flawless Widescreen - Gaming the way it should be! flawlesswidescreen.org

lots of great info here, thank you.

 

[TwistedMetalGear]

It's so dumb though. I'm surprised they don't limit the game to 60hz and have everyone play on the same settings lol

They should've kept it console exclusive if they wanted everyone on a level playing field. There's much more than ultrawide monitors that can give players a competitive advantage on PC. To me Overwatch is a casual cartoony shooter, so it baffles me why they have to be so strict about the minuscule advantage that an ultrawide provides.

 

[elvn]

I believe LoL and DoTA both support 21:9 and way more people play them competitively. Also counterstrike/cs:go and bf4, BF1.

 

[SixFootDuo]

I had one and I hated ... hated .... HATED it.

The monitor is very very narrow. it's about that same size as a tiny fucking 19" or 20" monitor vertically.

When you surf the web you have this black borders that are just terrible.

I am so happy and glad that I'm not the type of 'narrow' minded consumer, pun intended that would purchase one of these nasty looking things.

You literally gain a few more inches over a wide screen monitor so I really don't see a point. To me, there are just too many downsides.

Also, these 34" ultra wide screen monitors can be very expensive. I think it's more of a thing for them to just charge you more money.

For ultra wide to work it needs to be in a 45"+ inch display so the top and bottom aren't so narrow.

My amazing 49" 4k Samsung with 4:4:4, amazing color and PQ and a very low 18ms blows just about anything away. Not my words ... but all my friends or people that see it.

Seriously, 19" or 20" or whatever narrow top and bottom? WHY ............................. It's 2017. Or else you guys have tiny narrow eyes and a small head and you're .... OK? with that ...

 

[refraxion]

I had one and I hated ... hated .... HATED it.

The monitor is very very narrow. it's about that same size as a tiny fucking 19" or 20" monitor vertically.

When you surf the web you have this black borders that are just terrible.

I am so happy and glad that I'm not the type of 'narrow' minded consumer, pun intended that would purchase one of these nasty looking things.

You literally gain a few more inches over a wide screen monitor so I really don't see a point. To me, there are just too many downsides.

Also, these 34" ultra wide screen monitors can be very expensive. I think it's more of a thing for them to just charge you more money.

For ultra wide to work it needs to be in a 45"+ inch display so the top and bottom aren't so narrow.

My amazing 49" 4k Samsung with 4:4:4, amazing color and PQ and a very low 18ms blows just about anything away. Not my words ... but all my friends or people that see it.

Seriously, 19" or 20" or whatever narrow top and bottom? WHY ............................. It's 2017. Or else you guys have tiny narrow eyes and a small head and you're .... OK? with that ...

34" UW = 27" 16:9. I don't know which UW you ended up using, but it sounds like you cheaped out.

 

[elvn]

Yes. I don't own one but they are more like this guy's:

Gallery https://imgur.com/a/6kQxk?

height with tape measure https://i.imgur.com/mXAqVZO.jpg

And comparatively at a perceived 108.8 ppi distance...

 

[TwistedMetalGear]

I had one and I hated ... hated .... HATED it.

The monitor is very very narrow. it's about that same size as a tiny fucking 19" or 20" monitor vertically.

When you surf the web you have this black borders that are just terrible.

I am so happy and glad that I'm not the type of 'narrow' minded consumer, pun intended that would purchase one of these nasty looking things.

You literally gain a few more inches over a wide screen monitor so I really don't see a point. To me, there are just too many downsides.

Also, these 34" ultra wide screen monitors can be very expensive. I think it's more of a thing for them to just charge you more money.

For ultra wide to work it needs to be in a 45"+ inch display so the top and bottom aren't so narrow.

My amazing 49" 4k Samsung with 4:4:4, amazing color and PQ and a very low 18ms blows just about anything away. Not my words ... but all my friends or people that see it.

Seriously, 19" or 20" or whatever narrow top and bottom? WHY ............................. It's 2017. Or else you guys have tiny narrow eyes and a small head and you're .... OK? with that ...

What are you talking about?

27" 16:9 vs. 34" ultrawide

 

[SixFootDuo]

He said the 1080p was fine. And it is. A lot of people are ok with 1080 even at 40+ inches. I have a 42" 1080p on my desk and it looks great.

4k takes a ton of GPU power.

So let's rephase, "TO YOU" .... it looks like shit.

 

[SixFootDuo]

First of all, you have the smaller display obscured about 2 or so inches. As I said, the ultra wide is only about 2" or 3" wider on either side. NOT that big of a deal and to me, certainly not worth the hassle of the cons you get to deal with. For me, those black borders are not not fun to deal with.

Notice, I am not telling anyone to not buy one of these. For me, I couldn't do it. I get what the original poster is saying, hence the reason I chimed in.

You guys with the small 24" and 27" monitors, rock it out. No hate here.

 

[refraxion]

First of all, you have the smaller display obscured about 2 or so inches. As I said, the ultra wide is only about 2" or 3" wider on either side. NOT that big of a deal and to me, certainly not worth the hassle of the cons you get to deal with. For me, those black borders are not not fun to deal with.

Notice, I am not telling anyone to not buy one of these. For me, I couldn't do it. I get what the original poster is saying, hence the reason I chimed in.

You guys with the small 24" and 27" monitors, rock it out. No hate here.

It's not that you agree or disagree. It's that you have a condescending tone. You have your opinion, but I believe there is a better way of expressing it.

Even when you say "you guys with the small 24" and 27" monitors, rock it out. No hate here." That is condescending in nature.

 

[SixFootDuo]

No, you're putting words into my mouth. I meant exactly what I said, which was basically rock whatever you want. I said that so people like you wouldn't have their feelings hurt, which, apparently didn't work too well for you. You're not picking up me being condescending, you're just experiencing your own issues. Not mine.

 

[zone74]

No, you're putting words into my mouth. I meant exactly what I said, which was basically rock whatever you want. I said that so people like you wouldn't have their feelings hurt, which, apparently didn't work too well for you. You're not picking up me being condescending, you're just experiencing your own issues. Not mine.

Oh, so you weren't being condescending with these comments.

My amazing 49" 4k Samsung with 4:4:4, amazing color and PQ and a very low 18ms blows just about anything away.

As I said, the ultra wide is only about 2" or 3" wider on either side. NOT that big of a deal

You guys with the small 24" and 27" monitors

 

[GodOfGaming]

34" 21:9 is indeed a bit too low vertically, I'm used to 32" 16:9 and I really like the vertical size, I find it to be perfect, I don't want anything lower or anything higher, but I would certainly like something wider (without losing on the vertical size). That one 38" ultrawide LG fits the bill, but it's just that one model, I hope they make more monitors in 38" ultrawide. Also I like the idea of the new Samsung 44" 29:9 aspect ratio 3840x1200 monitor coming out in September, but that won't be any taller vertically than a 34" 21:9, 27" 16:9 or 25" 16:10...

 

[N4CR]

Put it next to a 4k 40" plus screen and you won't bother with UW again.
Aspectfagging is just silly when support is an equally important part of gaming, unless you only play latest AA title.

 

[Gasaraki_]

It's not that amazing because that's shitty. Why would anyone buy a 1080 ultrawide? I rather have a 24" at 1080.

 

[Armenius]

It's not that amazing because that's shitty. Why would anyone buy a 1080 ultrawide? I rather have a 24" at 1080.

A 29" 2560x1080 would be about the same PPI as a 24" 1920x1080. OP's mistake was getting a 34" at that resolution.

 

[refraxion]

Put it next to a 4k 40" plus screen and you won't bother with UW again.
Aspectfagging is just silly when support is an equally important part of gaming, unless you only play latest AA title.

Or I could put it against my 70" 4k screen compared to a 40" 4k screen. Still prefer my UW for PC gaming. 60hz 4k gaming is not for me, too slow and non fluid.

 

[jhatfie]

34" 21:9 is indeed a bit too low vertically, I'm used to 32" 16:9 and I really like the vertical size, I find it to be perfect, I don't want anything lower or anything higher, but I would certainly like something wider (without losing on the vertical size)...

I feel the same way. I had a 34" Ultra Wide, but found that I did not like the vertical height compared to my 32" 16:9's. Every person that checked out my setup always liked the 32" better, every time. A good gaming Ultra Wide with the same vertical height (or slightly taller) as a 32" 16:9 and high refresh rate might be fantastic. For now I'll just keep enjoying my Omen while I wait.

 

[SoupyFlow]

I tried out the LG 34UC79G-B ultrawide, which is 34 inches, Curved, 2560x1080 and does 144Hz all in a IPS panel. While it was a nice monitor, I just couldn't get into the 21:9 ultrawide format. I mainly used it for gaming but some games looked great and other games were just weird. For example World of Warcraft looked amazing and was very immersive in 21:9, but then games like Battlefield 4 I could never seem to get the right FOV setting that I liked. Also a lot of games did the whole stretching FOV effect on the sides which drove me nuts. Lastly some game flat out didn't support 21:9 and I had to deal with black bars, or games nerfed 21:9 users like on Overwatch, which just cuts off the top and bottom of the screen a bit.

I had two of the LG 34UC79G-B (both returned) and while nice, both had pretty bad backlight bleed (not IPS glow) right where the monitor curved. I heard this is pretty common with the curved ones though. Unfortunately I don't think I would like a completely flat 21:9 ultrawide.

 

[Armenius]

Anyone try one of these beauties? 38", 3840x1600. About the same height as a 30" 16:9 or 28" 16:10.

http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38UC99-W-ultrawide-monitor

 

[zone74]

Put it next to a 4k 40" plus screen and you won't bother with UW again.

Looks fine to me when compared against a 46" 16:9 screen.

It's physically smaller, but both end up filling the same vertical FoV when I sit at a comfortable distance to work on either display, while the 21:9 panel is wider.

 

[x3sphere]

Anyone try one of these beauties? 38", 3840x1600. About the same height as a 30" 16:9 or 28" 16:10.

http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38UC99-W-ultrawide-monitor

yeah, I have one It's an awesome monitor, I've had an X34 and also own a C6 OLED but this is my go to for productivity. I feel the size is just perfect and I love the more aggressive curved compared to some of the other options. Wish Vega would hurry up and release so I can drive this thing properly in games. Using it with an AMD Fury at the moment, which struggles in more recent games at this res.

 

[Dan_D]

He said the 1080p was fine. And it is. A lot of people are ok with 1080 even at 40+ inches. I have a 42" 1080p on my desk and it looks great.

4k takes a ton of GPU power.

So let's rephase, "TO YOU" .... it looks like shit.

It is relative, I'd agree but I also think that people who still think 1080P looks good simply haven't truly experienced 4K aren't they aren't observant enough to see the difference. Some people just don't see it. My girlfriend can't tell the difference between 4K and 1080P beyond saying 4K looks better. She can't articulate what's better about it, she just knows it looks better. A lot of people are like that. You see a similar effect with people who don't use the HD channels on their HD TV and can't really tell the difference between SD stretched and HD in the proper aspect ratio. They don't see it and it's hard to believe when the difference stands out so clearly to you.

In my opinion 1080P looks OK for gaming. I've got a 65" 4K TV in my theatre room and I've played console games on it many times. It looks good for the most part. That said, I'm rocking a 49" 4K on my gaming rig and I use it for both work and gaming. I've also tried using 1080P TV's upwards of 55" in the past as monitors. Without UHD support, TV's are shitty monitors for anything but gaming. Before we had decent 4K sets I thought TV's were useless for anything but gaming due to their dot pitch and other issues. Even for gaming, there is a slight image quality hit without UHD support. You can see it whenever you enable game mode vs. PC mode on any of the Samsung TV's. When it comes to gaming or work, 4K is a huge step up from 1080P.

Similarly, some people can't stand the soap opera effect on TVs while some don't seem to notice it or it doesn't bother them. Other people would trade refresh rate for resolution while others do the opposite. Its all comes down to personal preference. That said, I doubt there are many people that would be OK dropping back to 1080P if they've experienced a good 4K setup. Refresh rates and other things being equal anyway.

 

[XBarbarian]

here's the simple point: if you sit fairly close, then 34" UW vertical is a NON Issue. - most brains do not process visual data outside of a fairly narrow band,.. if you sit back, as the 45"+ folks must, otherwise there is a whole lot of data outside your FOV.. then verticle pixel height would make a difference.

I sit about 1.5'-2' away from my PD348Q and its PERFECT. any additional vertical data would be WASTED.. out of my FOV, without movement to see.

 

[Dan_D]

here's the simple point: if you sit fairly close, then 34" UW vertical is a NON Issue. - most brains do not process visual data outside of a fairly narrow band,.. if you sit back, as the 45"+ folks must, otherwise there is a whole lot of data outside your FOV.. then verticle pixel height would make a difference.

I sit about 1.5'-2' away from my PD348Q and its PERFECT. any additional vertical data would be WASTED.. out of my FOV, without movement to see.

I sit about 2.5" or so from the monitor and I can make use of 40"-43" without any issue. 49" is a bit too much for productivity in my opinion. I do have to move my head a little to see stuff in the upper edges of the display. For gaming, it's absolutely spectacular. As for "wasted" space, I think that's nonsense. I'd rather have more pixels than I need instead of less.

 

[elvn]

The conversation is getting circular. As previous replies show, more desktop real-estate is great. The problem is 27" 16:9 scene to 40" 16:9 scene is the exact same scene just JUMBO and pushed further into the periphery. You aren't gaining any more in game real estate in 1st/3rd person games like you do with a 21:9 (or an LG 24:10). That said, on a large enough 4k you could run a 21:9 rez with bars anyway.. which might be more appealing once 144hz g-sync 4k's come out on dp 1.4.

Until dev's allow you to zoom out a lot further so that you can gain actual game world real-estate rather than just magnifying the same scene onto a wall in front of you, using a much larger 16:9 is not adding game world for immersion really.

An annoyingly aspect of using an (overly) large 16:9 screen or an ultrawide up close is that it pushes crictical HUD elements.. notifications, pointers, maps, actionbar slots, inventories, etc much further out into the periphery.

Another way (other than allowing further zoom out for added game real-estate) that I could see very large screens working up close is with games designed in a VR like scheme rather than the traditional HUDs and field of views.

---------------------------------------
By the way, there is already a pretty similar modern discussion to what this thread has become
And this is why 21:9 monitors are pretty much useless for gaming (hardforum display thread)
----------------------------------------

Linked below you can find some very relevant statements in some old threads even though they are talking about old resolutions like 4:3 vs 16:9. I got quite a few chuckles out of reading them.

This thread is like deja-vu of the 4:3 to 16:9 days.

4:3 DoTa 's broken widescreen
PSA: You see more of the battlefield with 16:9 resolutions. • /r/DotA2

Gaming: Widescreen vs. 4:3 or 5:4 Hardforum 2005
Gaming: Widescreen vs. 4:3 or 5:4

I like widescreen monitors way better, but I voted for regular in the Poll. Having a widescreen LCD on my laptop, I can say for sure that it's a pain in the ass with some games. Best case, it actually supports widescreen, worst case it will look "stretched" when you play it.

So if you want a completely hassle free experience, you should go with a regular monitor. It is quite rewarding though when you're playing on a widescreen monitor with a game that actually supports it.

------------------------------------

 

[tegirinenashi]

here's the simple point: if you sit fairly close, then 34" UW vertical is a NON Issue. - most brains do not process visual data outside of a fairly narrow band,...

If you sit close enough, you just waste screen estate on the sides, which would be out of field of view. Human FOV is around 4:3 this is trivial anatomic fact.

Want an ultimate argument why "cinematic" aspect ratio is moronic? Humans have 2 eyes. Each individual eyeball, being spherical, has a vision a square aspect ratio (=1:1). Even if human vision were fish-like (that is there were no stereoscopic vision overlap between the eyes), the field of view would have been 2:1 (that is two squares adjacent to each other). Aspect ratios above 2:0 (like "cinematic" 2.35:1) is ridiculous.