On February 20 2010 23:15 Wuselmops wrote:
because sc2 is optimized for contemporary screens. any kind of advantage (such as more height) for old screens would have been dumb.

Why would that be dumb? It would even things up. Also 4:3 =/= old screen it is an aspect ratio not a technology. I did search on newegg and about 25% of monitors are 4:3.

Wuselmops

Germany346 Posts

February 20 2010 17:08 GMT

#42

25% of what monitors? currently sold for gaming purposes? i don't think so.

blizzard chose a clear standard for the maximum field of view, that you can use on every screen, with or without bars, that really evens things up. i also still have a 4:3 screen, but in a few years you will laugh about this discussion, because i bet almost everyone will have 16 : 9.

IntoTheWow

is awesome32278 Posts

February 20 2010 17:22 GMT

#43

On February 20 2010 23:15 Wuselmops wrote:
because sc2 is optimized for contemporary screens. any kind of advantage (such as more height) for old screens would have been dumb.

Considering Blizzard focus on making the game playable on old technology, your argument sounds pretty weak :p

Wuselmops

Germany346 Posts

February 20 2010 17:31 GMT

#44

playable =/= optimized

Polis

Poland1292 Posts

February 20 2010 17:33 GMT

#45

On February 21 2010 02:08 Wuselmops wrote:
25% of what monitors? currently sold for gaming purposes? i don't think so.

Currently in shop. You use diferent monitor for gaming, and different for other uses seriously? It is rather obvious that many people have non 16 : 9, and that many will have in years to come as well.

On February 21 2010 02:08 Wuselmops wrote:blizzard chose a clear standard for the maximum field of view, that you can use on every screen, with or without bars, that really evens things up.

You could also use 4:3 field of view on 16 : 9 with bars if you would want to.

On February 21 2010 02:08 Wuselmops wrote:but in a few years you will laugh about this discussion, because i bet almost everyone will have 16 : 9.

16 : 9 sucks for many applications.

Wuselmops

Germany346 Posts

February 20 2010 17:41 GMT

#46

too small screens suck for many applications, but for what application can a screen be too wide?

Polis

Poland1292 Posts

February 20 2010 17:54 GMT

#47

On February 21 2010 02:41 Wuselmops wrote:
too small screens suck for many applications, but for what application can a screen be too wide?

16 : 9 ; 4:3=16:12. 21cal 16 : 9 has much less height then 21cal 4:3, 16 : 9 is just flattered 4:3, it is smaller by desk space that it takes. If somebody needs more height then you expect him to buy much longer 16 : 9? It would have to be 30% longer to have the same height. 4:3 ratio is better for many.

caution.slip

United States775 Posts

February 20 2010 18:39 GMT

#48

Well when people do work, they put documents side by side (usually). If they need height to read, they should invest in a 16: 9 monitor that can be stood straight up

the only reason you need that much height is if you want to read....atleast i've never run into a situation where i need more height. Maybe for programming. But its much easier for the minority of people who need a taller monitor to get a special monitor

NeVeR

1352 Posts

February 20 2010 22:36 GMT

#49

On February 20 2010 11:54 Wuselmops wrote:
i already posted this in the other thread:

[image loading]

wow wtf.. Does this mean that 1920x1050 monitors actually show MORE terrain than 1920x1200 monitors? How is this possible?

teapot

United Kingdom266 Posts

February 20 2010 22:46 GMT

#50

On February 21 2010 07:36 NeVeR wrote:

Show nested quote +

wow wtf.. Does this mean that 1920x1050 monitors actually show MORE terrain than 1920x1200 monitors? How is this possible?

Yes, that is exactly what it means.

Liquid`Jinro

Sweden33719 Posts

February 23 2010 09:12 GMT

#51

Argh. That gif makes me sad.

Choice A: Play on my 30" monitor. Game sometimes lags (like, replays at 6x speed and such), and it's really a bit big for gaming ;(

Choice B: Play on my 20" monitor and suffer from a much smaller field of view =[

Choice C: Buy a 3rd monitor lol

semantics

10040 Posts

February 23 2010 09:22 GMT

#52

You could play on the 30" using a 16

resolution although usually 30" are for productivity and already suffer from mild amounts of ghosting.

Also I'm maybe feeling that 25" may be just right for you! :D

Polis

Poland1292 Posts

February 23 2010 09:46 GMT

#53

On February 21 2010 03:39 caution.slip wrote:
Well when people do work, they put documents side by side (usually). If they need height to read, they should invest in a 16: 9 monitor that can be stood straight up

the only reason you need that much height is if you want to read....atleast i've never run into a situation where i need more height. Maybe for programming. But its much easier for the minority of people who need a taller monitor to get a special monitor

I find 4:3 much better for pretty much everything. For normal use web browsing etc. It would be at least as good for SC2 as well, why would you not want more balanced view in all directions? Stupid widescreen fad :/. If you have monitor big enough to place documents side by side then getting it wider don't give you much, much less then having more height anyway.

Liquid`Jinro

Sweden33719 Posts

February 23 2010 09:50 GMT

#54

On February 23 2010 18:22 Virtue wrote:
You could play on the 30" using a 16

resolution although usually 30" are for productivity and already suffer from mild amounts of ghosting.

Also I'm maybe feeling that 25" may be just right for you! :D

Hm, maybe... I did notice that when I turned off my second monitor (the 20"), 6x speed reps were smooth.

Argh it feels stupid spending money on a third monitor - who the hell needs 3 monitors ;D?

water-hand

Italy47 Posts

February 23 2010 17:01 GMT

#55

if 16/10:10 is 1920x1200, it would be greater than 16/9 @ 1920x1080

MamiyaOtaru

United States1687 Posts

March 08 2010 02:32 GMT

#56

I know this has been gone over, but I love it how when I change resolution from 1600*1024 to 1600*1200, increasing the number of pixels, I see less of the map.

I understand how they've chosen to work with aspect ratio works now. But just look at those pictures and tell me it makes sense. Image 2 is just as wide (to the pixel) as image 1, but shows less.

To see as much of the map as possible, I have to play below my native resolution, either with a stretched image or by not using parts of my monitor. I find this less than optimal.

Forget resolution (a 1280*800 screen shows the same amount of the map as a 2560*1600 screen). The picture looks like this:

and I'd prefer it if map coverage reflected that.

Fun fact - one of the major driving factors in the adoption of widescreen by the industry is this: a 22" widescreen has less than 90% the total area of a 22" 4:3 monitor (in fact, a 21" 4:3 monitor has more surface area than a 22" widescreen). This allows manufacturers to save money on materials by delivering a smaller product while still advertising a monitor that appears from the specs to be just as large or larger (22 inches corner to corner). This trend is not going away of course, but I'm sick of being punished for it QQ

To put it another way, if someone with 1920*1200 were to say to me "my monitor is wider of course I should be able to see more, it's wide lolol" I would respond by asking why the guy with the 1280*800 screen gets to see just as much as him. I would ask why my monitor, despite being wider than 1280, displays less than the 1280*800 monitor. He might respond by saying it's not about resolution it's about aspect ratio and I would ask why I don't get more horizontal view despite my aspect ratio being taller. In the same way his 1920*1200 is like mine but with extra horizontal pixels, the 1280*800 is just like my old 1280*1024 but with fewer vertical pixels. One could argue it either way. It should come out in the middle, but Blizzard has come down entirely on one side without seeking any middle ground and it bothers me.

CharlieMurphy

United States22895 Posts

March 08 2010 02:49 GMT

#57

Did anyone mention that the amount of time and extra mouse movement needed for the widescreen to scroll on the edges can actually be a bad thing and arguably worse than seeing less of the screen at all times?

Phrasax

Spain2 Posts

April 29 2010 17:16 GMT

#58

In RTS, being able to see more terrain than the enemy would be and advantage, and that is what blizzard try to stop.

In most games, vertical visibility is way more usefull than horizontal visibility, so blizzard capped how many vertical zone are u able to see, thats why resolution dont care and wider monitors show more map than the rest, independently of what resolution u choose.

So it won't be fixed, it is done for balancing issues and i'm ok with that.

And hi all, and sorry for my bad english :p

e4e5nf3

Canada599 Posts

April 29 2010 17:22 GMT

#59

I use a 19" 4:3 monitor, but in the sc2 game settings I set the resolution so I am playing in a 16

ratio. I get those black bars at the top and bottom and the units and buildings are obviously a little smaller, but at least I can see more of the battlefield.