- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
Posted by: The__Abhorred
55% 1024x768 - Yes, my 13" laptop uses this resolution, as did my VERY OLD 15" Acer LCD. It was a popular resolution about 2 years ago. Why is it still represented so much? Because the general public do not upgrade their components, monitors especially, all that often - look at all the 15" CRTs and LCDs about. Gamers who shell out money for the latest and greatest games (not that H2 is latest or greatest anymore) also shell out money for higher end hardware, and it is fair that 1440x900 should be supported in H2, as a large number of people own 19" WS LCDs. Widescreen is becoming the norm.
The general public doesn't upgrade to "bigger and better" monitors because the general public doesn't spend their money on getting the greatest and latest things (unless it's some sort of fad). People typically have 17" monitors nowadays; my monitor goes up to 1600x1200, but I can't see a damn thing at that resolution. Everyone keeps insisting bigger = better, but it's actually causing more eye problems then anything else. 1280x1024 is my border line for resolution, mainly because it's formal, unlike wide screen, which is also another reason why the general populace are not buying wide screen monitors.
Posted by: The__Abhorred
I guess you want sources on this so here it is: http://msy.com.au/Parts/PARTS.pdf they tend to be where most people in Australia get their gear from, because it's cheap. Because their turnover is so high (you might doubt it from the look of their site, but it is) they only bother stocking a few items that are purchased in high volumes. Have a look at all the widescreens there (denoted by WS), like 90%. People want widescreen, whether it's better or not (it is) is immaterial, more and more people are using them and so the native res needs to be supported in all games.
You call an obscure Australian company a source? Hold on, let me go get Michael Moore to be my credible source in this argument. I'm sure he's just as a reliable source as well.
Posted by: The__Abhorred
Widescreen won't yet be the majority, it will be eventually though. Square screens are a dying breed.
I'm sure every board of directorates of every company around the world that uses computers is making the life-breaking decision of whether they want their workers to have wide screen monitors versus monitors that have not only been going down in price, but make up the complete norm of formal. Yes, I can see it now. Wide screen is definitely being considered a choice.
Posted by: The__Abhorred
Like it or not, heaps of people have 19" widescreens, so why on earth would you not provide proper support for their resolution?
These "heaps" of people? Where are these "heaps?" I'm currently running that poll on four different major gaming sites--you know, sites where GAMERS harbor at? Guess what leads in the poll? I'll give you a hint.
It's not wide screen.
Posted by: RhythmKiller
*sigh*. I have no interest in trading challenges with a bratty forum user, agamemnon582bc. For some unknown reason this has become a competition to you, rather than a discussion. And I will not compete in such a childish way. The facts are available.
So if you're proven wrong resort to personal attacks? What are you, a politician?
If the facts are available, present them. I would think it to be rather easy for someone who seems to know what they're talking about, especially when they talk about how they "will not participate" in such discussion, yet continue to do so.
Posted by: RhythmKiller
I have no intention of digging for proof of the easily-observed and stone cold fact that the PS3 and 360 are natively widescreen, any more that I would if you challenged the fact the earth revolves around the sun. Your apparently total lack of knowledge about consoles is not my onus for proving glaring facts about them.
You obviously haven't read that other thread on "Should I just buy a 360 to play Halo 2?" Then again, you're on a roll with the personal attacks, which makes you look all the more mature and your arguments stronger, so please, continue.
Posted by: RhythmKiller
I can tell that you refuse to accept the coming dominance of widescreen because of no better reason than you haven’t adopted yourself yet. This kind of thinking is common on forums, I’ve come to expect it. So for that case, here is an article which should get you up to speed on industry expectations.
Whoah whoah, I thought you just said you weren't going to present to me "proof?" I mean, obscure UK online news articles from a writer's opinion is obviously a serious blow into my side in this argument, but really, here I was thinking you were going to ride this whole thing on personal attack and opinion.
Posted by: RhythmKiller
And I won’t even bother with your implication that a stretched FOV on an older 4:3 monitor is as good as the same horizontal angle properly presented on 16:9 – you know it isn’t.
Actually, I know it is. It's all a matter of opinion as well. You prefer asymmetrical; I prefer symmetry.
Posted by: RhythmKiller
But ultimately, I don’t care what you choose to think and I don't have to prove or defend what most people know (including a good few in this thread it would seem). Games are going widescreen, whether it offends your sensibilities or otherwise. Desktop PCs have been lagging behind laptops in widescreen saturation but will catch up soon.
So first you say, after repeating yourself and contradicting yourself for a while, that you're not going to defend it, yet, in the very same sentence, you go on to do just that. Make up your mind, will you? Stick with one argument tactic that involves blind-folding people to the real issue instead of most that you can fabricate out of thin air.