Have you actually used a 21:9 display, or are you judging this by screenshots?
Anything less would mean letterboxing movies again, and it's only 1/3 wider than 16:9 (just as 16:9 was 1/3 wider than 4:3).
Of course you're free to have your own preferences.Yes. Is it really hard to believe that some people might not view things the same way you do?
Of course you're free to have your own preferences.
I'm just surprised that anyone would want to bring back letterboxing in movies after 21:9 displays finally eliminated it for 99% of them.
The most common aspect ratio for movies is 2.37:1, and most "21:9" displays are very slightly wider, since they're technically 43:18 (2.39:1).
I'd prefer that they were 2.40:1 since that's as wide as typical movie aspect ratios get.
If I could buy a 2.40:1 TV, I would do so in a heartbeat.
I cannot stand letterboxing and the way that it either makes the image smaller, or requires you to sit closer to get the same impact.
Movies are supposed to have a bigger and more immersive image than TV, not less - and I prefer that for games as well.
16:9 is especially bad in third-person games. I played Resident Evil 3 on a 16:9 projector, and it felt so claustrophobic compared to my 21:9 monitor. I hate it.
I agree that 32:9 is too wide, since it forces me to sit further back - which makes the image feel smaller.I don't want to bring back letterboxing, and there's not much you can do about the movie industry standards since they've been far from a good match with televisions since forever, but I am also not a big movie buff so I'm mostly talking about gaming here. And for that purpose I find 16:9 to be pretty good even if I'd be okay with something slightly wider. But 32:9 is just ridiculous to me. At that point it's starting to look like a strip rather than something to cover a human eye's FOV.
I agree that 32:9 is too wide, since it forces me to sit further back - which makes the image feel smaller.
But 21:9 does not. I can comfortably sit as close to a 21:9 display as I can with 16:9. It fills more of my vision without being any less comfortable.
At least that has been my experience.
- Going back to 16:9 for gaming after 21:9 feels like something is missing - even if the display is much larger; e.g. a 130" projector.
- Going back to 21:9 after 32:9 feels more immersive because I can sit closer.
Perhaps people that like the 32:9 format for gaming were already sitting far enough from their displays that all it does is add width, rather than force them to sit further back due to discomfort.
Pretty impressive. I'm impressed that someone still wanna play old PS1 games ;)
Mostly because 3d games doesn't age so well. But that's a personal taste. I do enjoy old ps1 2d games though :)PS1 has some of the greatest games of all time. Why wouldn't people want to play them?
Think that was a jab at Sony and Jim RyanPS1 has some of the greatest games of all time. Why wouldn't people want to play them?
Polyphony da gawds
Mostly because 3d games doesn't age so well. But that's a personal taste. I do enjoy old ps1 2d games though :)
RIIIIIDGE RACER!!!
You were faster than me.
UI and menus stretch in both 2097 and 3, and 3 in particular doesn't play well at all with any aspect ratio over 16:9 as the track gets loaded out near the edges. 2097 does this too but to a much lesser degree, the tracks I tried seem playable if you can deal with the UI stretching.
Sadly yesI imagine the Crash games still don't work in widescreen with their pre-computed culling, right?
Man, Vagrant Story still looks so fucking good. I wish we could get them to acknowledge its existence and put it on another console/PC like they have with various FF titles.
Another batch:
~ Bloody Roar 2 ~
~ Shadow Tower ~
~ Xenogears ~