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

WideScreen VS. Regular(4:3 or 5:4) for Gaming

  • Widescreen is better.

    Votes: 80 80.0%

  • Regular is better.

    Votes: 20 20.0%
  • Total voters
    100
S

stelleg151

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2004
Messages
444
I would like to hear opinions from people who have tried both about which they like more, and maybe a few specific examples of games that were good and games that were bad.

Please dont turn this into a argument, just simply give an opinion, if someone else has a different one, let them feel that way, its not threatening your opinion.

Please feel free to add any coments about widescreen gaming troubles, even if you voted that widescreen is better. Basically this thread is to help people, myself included, to decide between widescreen and regular, both by getting a number on who prefers what, and also a little bit of why. So your comments on youre experiences are greatly appriciated.

Thanks in advance,
George
 
Let me be the first to answer your question and vote. I've never played any widescreen games on pc, but I have on my 46"HDTV. I played D3 coop with a buddy a week ago. He was using my 4:3 27" tv, next to my 16:9 46" hdtv. Let me tell you that the FOV is quite a bit larger in 16x9, and is thus more immersive. Needless to say, I'm looking into getting a widescreen lcd for my pc...
 
Lol, widescreen is 16:10, not 4:5, 4:5 is a weird-looking screen in portrait mode :D

Widescreen all the way baby, 4:3 is nice but it's too square ;)
 
he said 5:4, which is what 1280x1024 would be. the proper 4:3 is 1280x960, but many games are run at 1280x1024 instead. why? who knows. i always thought it was a bit wierd that the resolution was even offered, seeing as there's no 5:4 monitors.
 
The number of people who can no longer read and comprehend simple sentences is staggering. Combine that with those that are willing to give incorrect information and state is as fact and at the same time attack others when they think they are wrong (even when they are not) and its amazing that anyone gets any useful information out of these forums at all.
 
4:3 all the way brutha! Why? Because that's how almost all games are designed to be played, and any true game player would want to experience a game from the director and designers' vision, the same reason settling for 4:3 Pan and Scan movies are way unacceptable.
 
forget the people that say games are meant for 4:3

Counter Strike Source on my 2005FPW is AWESOME and so are all the other games I've played. Mmmm widscreen FARCRY
 
The Diplomat said:
The number of people who can no longer read and comprehend simple sentences is staggering. Combine that with those that are willing to give incorrect information and state is as fact and at the same time attack others when they think they are wrong (even when they are not) and its amazing that anyone gets any useful information out of these forums at all.
Click to expand...

Don't like it, leave :rolleyes:
 
Saying games are MEANT to be played using 4:3 aspect is kind of silly, games today are like being in your own world in a 3D perspective, games aren't so linear that you absolutely need to be in 4:3 to enjoy them. Having a larger FOV and wider aspect just enhances the 3d environment. Comparing games to a movie is also a bit rediculous, games offer so much more than static linear movies shot and composed from the directors vision :). A good game is sort of like creating your own movie, you pick and choose what to do and what you want to see, some people would just rather see more. :)
 
It's my experience that 16:10 is much better for fps like Farcry and HL2, but for games like Warcraft 3 a 4:3 or 5:4 LCD gives a much more balanced FOV.

Also:
16:10 is better suited for movies while 4:3 and 5:4 is better for web pages.
When it comes to other application it depends on the program used. 16:10 might be better for Premiere while 4:3 and 5:4 more suited for Office applications.
 
Ford said:
...16:10 is better suited for movies while 4:3 and 5:4 is better for web pages.
When it comes to other application it depends on the program used. 16:10 might be better for Premiere while 4:3 and 5:4 more suited for Office applications.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree about your point about web and office applications for one reason - u can display 2 pages side by side more easily with 16:10 than with 4:3 screen. I can tell that from experience since I own both 2405fpw and 2001fp, they are about the same in height (2405 is only slightly higher, by about half an inch), but 2405 can fit so much more, and u can have ur toolbars on the side, too :D
 
Sparrow_69 said:
That's not entirely true. 17" and 19" lcds are 1280x1024 which is 5:4
Click to expand...

are you saying that the vertical and horizontal measurements of the screen work out to 5:4? i'm talking about physical size, not pixels. if they are 5:4, i didn't realize this. if they aren't then that was my point, that there's no reason for a 5:4 pixel aspect ratio on a screen with a 4:3 actual ratio. it results in some stretching, the same way that displaying 16:9 on a 4:3 screen would (if you didn't want black bars). granted the stretching (or compressing, in the case of 5:4 on a 4:3 screen) is not severe so it's not easy to notice
 
dualblade said:
are you saying that the vertical and horizontal measurements of the screen work out to 5:4? i'm talking about physical size, not pixels. if they are 5:4, i didn't realize this. if they aren't then that was my point, that there's no reason for a 5:4 pixel aspect ratio on a screen with a 4:3 actual ratio. it results in some stretching, the same way that displaying 16:9 on a 4:3 screen would (if you didn't want black bars). granted the stretching (or compressing, in the case of 5:4 on a 4:3 screen) is not severe so it's not easy to notice
Click to expand...
17" and 19" LCDs are physically 5:4 as well.
 
C'mon guys, It's not 16:10 for that would equal 8:5. It's 16:9. And, widescreens give a greater field of view.
 
Project_2501 said:
C'mon guys, It's not 16:10 for that would equal 8:5. It's 16:9. And, widescreens give a greater field of view.
Click to expand...
Both 1920x1200 and 1680x1050 resolutions are 16:10.
 
Let's see, 2405 physical dimensions of the screen: 518.4 mm (20.4 inches) by 324.0 mm (12.7 inches) which makes it's a 16:10 ratio, not 16:9. 16:9 are TVs, not computer monitors :p
 
Hmm, this brings attention to the fact that at some point, someone should write a definitive guide / FAQ to screen resolutions and their aspect ratios.. There is a ton of misinformation and misunderstanding floating around here.

As for my contribution to the thread...

I like 16:10 (1680x1050 or 1920x1200, the bigger the better ! :) ). I like the way it fills up my field of view. Once you get used to a wide screen display, all the anti-widescreen noise from people who knock it becomes just a bunch of unhelpful rhetoric. Don't knock it till ya try it, and for those who have tried it and still knock it, well, don't you have something better to do than to knock other peoples preferences? :)

Wide rectangle shapes just seem more pleasing and natural to my eyes. If you divide 16/10 or 16/9, you get 1.6 and 1.777... , which are both ratios fairly close to the golden ratio. Subjectively and historically, it seems that a LOT of people find this shape of a rectangle to be more pleasing than a more square-like shape. People involved with art , as well as mathematics, or even history have known this for a long time. Just google for something like "golden rectangle more pleasing to eye" and you'll see what I mean:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=golden+rectangle+pleasing+to+eye&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

If you get a large enough 16:10-shaped display, you can encompass the entirety of your 4:3 experience on it, and stick a bunch of other stuff on either side. Or as others have pointed out, you can do side-by-side web-browsing, or facing-page PDF, or whatever. I like to divide my screen into two areas and write code on the left (or right), and debug/test on the other half. Another thing that 16:10-shaped displays offer is a more natural-looking portrait mode. When I rotate my screen 90 degrees I get a shape which is *much* more page-like than a rotated 4:3 display. Now just pop a toolbar at the top or bottom of your screen, and you have a nice view of your document.

I'll let the hardcore gamers in this thread cover why they like widescreen for games so much .. I think I've said enough :cool:
 
nice response mad. I have a 2005fpw on the way :D . Unfortunately I only got in on the 35% instead of the 40%. Oh well, nothing that can be done now.

I am really looking foreward to widescreen gaming, as far majority here seem to praise it.

Thanks for the replies so far, and keep em comin!
 
Heh, for the 16:10 / 16:9 thing, I saw that while checking the specs on the Dell, and I stand corrected. Oh well, I thought I was contributing. Sorry.

The stem of this wasn't not doing research, but simple math. 16:10 can be further simplified to 8:5 while 16:9 can not be simplified any more.
 
TehQuick said:
I'd disagree about your point about web and office applications for one reason - u can display 2 pages side by side more easily with 16:10 than with 4:3 screen. I can tell that from experience since I own both 2405fpw and 2001fp, they are about the same in height (2405 is only slightly higher, by about half an inch), but 2405 can fit so much more, and u can have ur toolbars on the side, too :D
Click to expand...

Well if you are comparing a 24" wide vs a 20" 4:3 then yes, it's not like they are equal ground. If you would make an comparison between two LCD's with the same screen area then it would be quite different.

How comfortable is it to view two web pages on a 20" wide vs a single web page on a 19" 5:4?

However there might be situations where a wide is better I'm not arguing that.
 
Ford said:
Well if you are comparing a 24" wide vs a 20" 4:3 then yes, it's not like they are equal ground. If you would make an comparison between two LCD's with the same screen area then it would be quite different.

How comfortable is it to view two web pages on a 20" wide vs a single web page on a 19" 5:4?

However there might be situations where a wide is better I'm not arguing that.
Click to expand...

Well, u got to be more specific when making claims. After all, lots of ppl liken the 2005fpw to a 17" monitor, only wider. :D
 
A 2005fpw is the same size as my mouse pad! :) Viewable that is. And, it's the same height as my current 19" AOC crt, but a lot wider.
 
Project_2501 said:
A 2005fpw is the same size as my mouse pad! :) Viewable that is. And, it's the same height as my current 19" AOC crt, but a lot wider.
Click to expand...

See? :p
 
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.

One last note, most modern widescreen monitors have adopted the 16:10 ratio, while HDTV's and most other older/traditional widescreen monitors use the 16:9 ratio. It can be kinda confusing. For example, Quake 3 was one of the first games to support widescreen, but it was only 16:9. I think one of the first widescreen monitors was the big apple widescreen LCD, and I believe that was 16:9 also. I kinda wish they just stuck with 16:9 personally.
 
GotNoRice said:
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.

One last note, most modern widescreen monitors have adopted the 16:10 ratio, while HDTV's and most other older/traditional widescreen monitors use the 16:9 ratio. It can be kinda confusing. For example, Quake 3 was one of the first games to support widescreen, but it was only 16:9. I think one of the first widescreen monitors was the big apple widescreen LCD, and I believe that was 16:9 also. I kinda wish they just stuck with 16:9 personally.
Click to expand...


MY 2405 supports 1:1 mode, so no streched screen if the game doesn't support widescreen.

I really wish people would attemp to know at least a little about what they are talking about before posting bad information.

Best case, the game looks better than on a regular monitor. Worst case, the game looks the same. Either way it's hassle free.
 
Cabezone said:
MY 2405 supports 1:1 mode, so no streched screen if the game doesn't support widescreen.

I really wish people would attemp to know at least a little about what they are talking about before posting bad information.

Best case, the game looks better than on a regular monitor. Worst case, the game looks the same. Either way it's hassle free.
Click to expand...

Not everyone can afford 2405 :D Besides, for equal diagonal size, the widescreen would be smaller - so the image won't look equal ;)
 
for gaming, you see more... however, for regular and all-around use I'd still use a 22" square CRT. Even on a 24" (widescreen, 1900x1200) you can't properly fit 2 documents side by side and have it look right. Now, with a 30" you could... but that's a grand that I could probably use elsewhere.
 
Holy thread resurrection, Batman!

Two and a half years... Now that's impressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top