than a 4:3? because the length is longer, i was thinking, does it actually show you more stuff?

if yes, why do some progamers still use prefer to use 4:3? example will be Ace in IEM finals against moon. you can see on youtube, the video which shows his final moments before the game was won. the monitor was 4:3.

Cenja

Sweden498 Posts

April 04 2011 15:51 GMT

IEM only had 4:3 monitors.

number1gog

United States1081 Posts

April 04 2011 15:51 GMT

It's probably because old school BW players never played on widescreen. Instead of having to adapt to a new aspect ratio for a new game, they just made the new game fit their experience.

ishboh

United States954 Posts

April 04 2011 15:51 GMT

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=158275
yes you do.

Ichabod

United States1659 Posts

April 04 2011 15:51 GMT

At IEM they were forced to play on 4:3 monitors (I believe they were sharing the computers with other games), I believe 16: 9 is pretty much preferred by most players.
Edit: rofl

face

Bobster

Germany3075 Posts

April 04 2011 15:52 GMT

You see more on 16 : 9. I don't really know anyone who prefers 4 : 3, Moon was obviously playing in 4 : 3 because... he had to play on a 4 : 3 monitor.

Baituri

Netherlands1501 Posts

April 04 2011 15:52 GMT

It is because IEM only had 4:3 monitors. CounterStrike players prefer those, don't really know about Quake players, but since they are both shooters, I think they also prefer the 4:3 ratio.

Termit

Sweden3466 Posts

April 04 2011 15:55 GMT

When you sit on a 16: 9 screen and watching a stream with a player who use 4:3 you will see how huge difference it actually is between them. You miss a huge amount of space on a 4:3.

LaLuSh

Sweden2358 Posts

April 04 2011 15:55 GMT

Yes 16 : 9 shows you more.

Advantages with 4:3, however, include:

Minimap becomes larger and easier to click (good for players who prefer to jump around and switch between screens/locations).

Minimap is closer to the center of your screen where your mouse pointer will stay hovering most of the time.

You can mouse scroll without having to move your right hand a lot.

Some players, including myself, prefer to only have to flicker the wrist for mouse movements. So 4:3 becomes more natural as you can keep your right hand in position the whole time, while the minimap becomes easier to click on.

ElusoryX

Singapore2047 Posts

April 04 2011 16:28 GMT

#10

ah i see.. thanks to all who let me know IEM only had 4:3 :/

pksens

United Kingdom156 Posts

April 04 2011 17:11 GMT

#11

Just switched to 1600/900 over 1280/1024 .

It's like i see more everything, but problem is my micro sucks now :D

TheResidentEvil

United States991 Posts

April 04 2011 17:12 GMT

#12

ohh i did not know this. im running 16:10 but im going to switch to 16

pksens

United Kingdom156 Posts

April 04 2011 17:33 GMT

#13

Just to note on the above;

In my FPS games I use 1280/800 on a crt, widescreen resolutions do look ugly until you reduce the height on the on screen display menu itself. So it's really widescreen look on a CRT. I do this now with 1600/900 on my CRT @ reduced height and it looks really nice & basically I feel like I'm standing an extra 20 feet above my old "camera" position, seeing more of everything.. things are smaller though so the little micro bits will come, but really you can box larger things now so that control improves instantly.

CycoDude

United States326 Posts

April 04 2011 18:34 GMT

#14

On April 05 2011 02:12 TheResidentEvil wrote:
ohh i did not know this. im running 16:10 but im going to switch to 16

why? widescreen is widescreen. unless your current monitor is on it's way out, 16 : 9 will get you nothing, except potentially fewer vertical pixels depending on the resolution.

Zax19

Czech Republic1136 Posts

April 04 2011 20:38 GMT

#15

On April 05 2011 03:34 CycoDude wrote:

Show nested quote +

why? widescreen is widescreen. unless your current monitor is on it's way out, 16 : 9 will get you nothing, except potentially fewer vertical pixels depending on the resolution.

Actually in 16 to 10 you have the same vertical vision but less horizontal compared to 16 to 9. So with 1280*800 I see less than with 1280*720. Design failure.

KevinIX

United States2472 Posts

April 04 2011 20:45 GMT

#16

It's not worth buying a whole new monitor for. O.o

lindn

Sweden833 Posts

April 04 2011 21:03 GMT

#17

On April 05 2011 00:52 Baituri wrote:
It is because IEM only had 4:3 monitors. CounterStrike players prefer those, don't really know about Quake players, but since they are both shooters, I think they also prefer the 4:3 ratio.

tbh as a cs 1.6 player the only reason play 4:3 (even on 16: 9-16:10 screens) is because the game is made to fit in that size, it's nothing much but the feel is immensely different playing quake/cs 1.6 on 4:3 compared to 16: 9-16:10

edit: lol stupid

smilies

Phant

United States737 Posts

April 04 2011 21:04 GMT

#18

If you are running an old 4:3 an upgrade to widescreen would be amazing, in both picture quality and gameplay.

It's painful going back to 4:3 monitors now.

lorcasTV

Canada100 Posts

April 04 2011 21:10 GMT

#19

For those saying that switching aspect ratio isn't worth the money, you should know that if you read the full OP linked in the 3rd reply there is a step by step guide for changing the aspect ratio without buying a new monitor. I for one change my resolution from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 to play Starcraft 2. I don't have to buy a monitor, I just have to sacrifice 60 pixels at the top and bottom of the screen (black bars). No money involved, no huge headache and full 16 : 9 FoV.

Of course my game probably won't see any improvement, but that's just my need for optimization.

aNDRoM

United States637 Posts

April 04 2011 21:12 GMT

#20

Unit vision is the same right? You just see more of the map in widescreen, but you don't actually see more than in 4:3?

(Though I suppose if you had units across the entire area of your monitor, your gameplay vision would be greater on a widescreen.)