• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

4:3 gaming needs to die...

J

jedimike

Member
People can bitch about bad framerates, screen tearing, lighting bloom all day long, but for me the biggest distraction is a 4:3 screen. After playing my 360 for a few weeks, I tried to play Call of Cathulhu (a 4:3 game). I just couldn't get into it because I felt like I was playing with blinders on. It's really bad because the premise of the game is to look around and find clues. The restrictive view was just too great for me to ignore.

The wider peripheral view of 16:9 is just so much more natural. I can't imagine a better reason to upgrade to an HDTV and a 360 or PS3. It's nice to know that every game is being made for HD, which means 16:9. I really hope Nintendo gets on board with it... movie studios have known this for a couple decades now.
 
At least, every game released today should at least have a 16:9 option. Six months later, i still can't believe Conker was 4:3, considering Rare had a history of making 16:9 games even back to N64.
 
When playing an Xbox 1 game on 360, is it possible to stretch to fill screen? Or is it automatically displayed in a letterboxed 4:3 sent out as a 720p signal (like Soul Calibur 2 on Xbox) which prevents your TV from stretching it?
 
jedimike said:
The wider peripheral view of 16:9 is just so much more natural. I can't imagine a better reason to upgrade to an HDTV and a 360 or PS3. It's nice to know that every game is being made for HD, which means 16:9. I really hope Nintendo gets on board with it... movie studios have known this for a couple decades now.
Click to expand...
So is this thread about HD or widescreen?
 
Fatghost28 said:
When playing an Xbox 1 game on 360, is it possible to stretch to fill screen? Or is it automatically displayed in a letterboxed 4:3 sent out as a 720p signal (like Soul Calibur 2 on Xbox) which prevents your TV from stretching it?
Click to expand...

It plays it like the Xbox does so a 4:3 Xbox game would be 4:3 on the 360. I don't like 4:3 games now that I've got a widescreen TV either but I just use the zoom function on my TV. It's not the perfect solution but it's better than playing it with huge vertical borders at the sides
 
Not everyone has a widescreen TV for their console yet, so I think games need to have both 4:3 and 16:9 options. That way everyone's happy.
 
Danj said:
Not everyone has a widescreen TV for their console yet, so I think games need to have both 4:3 and 16:9 options. That way everyone's happy.
Click to expand...


Yeah, everyone's real happy then! [/Comic Book Guy] :D

I agree though. How difficult is it to add both options into the game?
 
I don't really have a problem going back and forth between 16:9 and 4:3 games. Then again I'm not one of those people that go "eww" when jumping between HD X360 games and SD PS2 games.

Art > Tech.
 
I'm

confused.jpg
 
What the hell? lolol

It's because you've played streak of 16.9 games that's all.
I mostly play 4.3 and i don't have any problems or bad feeling. Also, before i'll get a 360 or a PS3, there's not many present gen games that are having a true 16.9 and in this case it's looking WORSE than 4.3 imo.

I truly hope they leave the option for 4.3 up until those TV aren't seen anymore on the surface of this earth.
 
They'd damn well better keep that 4:3 option because I won't be able to afford an HDTV for years.

Wishing death upon 4:3 gaming is just so cruel. Why do so many people assume that everyone can afford a $2,000+ tv?
 
RegularMK said:
They'd damn well better keep that 4:3 option because I won't be able to afford an HDTV for years.

Wishing death upon 4:3 gaming is just so cruel. Why do so many people assume that everyone can afford a $2,000+ tv?
Click to expand...

Because so many people assume HDTVs all cost $2,000 and need to be 65 inches.
 
SnakeXs said:
Because so many people assume HDTVs all cost $2,000 and need to be 65 inches.
Click to expand...

Pffff, 30 inches still cost 1000$ if you want any quality at all... wich is still expensive imo.
(and also the reason why it still is like 5-10% of people owning HD TVs)
 
SnakeXs said:
Because so many people assume HDTVs all cost $2,000 and need to be 65 inches.
Click to expand...

who wants to buy a tiny hdtv for only a thousand bucks? How hard is it to understand that a large portion of the world's population simply can't afford to shell out that kind of cash?
 
I once went to one of those avant garde movie theaters to catch Howl's moving castle. At first I was jarred when the sound and projector screen werent nearly as high quality or up to date as the regular theater, but after about five minutes of actually watching the movie it failed to bother me anymore. Graphics and screen formats are trivial once you actually become engrossed.
 
RegularMK said:
who wants to buy a tiny hdtv for only a thousand bucks? How hard is it to understand that a large portion of the world's population simply can't afford to shell out that kind of cash?
Click to expand...

A quick look and I just saw quite a few 27-32" sets formuch less than 1K. Much much less. Hell, go look up the old HDTV thread and see bargains people got. If you don't want to buy a "tiny" set that's your problem, but if you can buy games and next-gen consoles, a HD set to play them on isn't far off.
 
SnakeXs said:
A quick look and I just saw quite a few 27-32" sets formuch less than 1K. Much much less. Hell, go look up the old HDTV thread and see bargains people got. If you don't want to buy a "tiny" set that's your problem, but if you can buy games and next-gen consoles, a HD set to play them on isn't far off.
Click to expand...

Name me the price you found and you may have a convert.
 
Here's just a few.

Less than 5 minutes of looking, no deal hunting, no bargain hunting, no specials, no sales.
If one was to search long and hard for a good deal you'd likely pay a lot less.
 
Those are decent prices, but still nothing I could afford. Not saying most people are as poor as me, but I certainly disagree with a future that means I literally cannot afford to game.

Whenever I get the nerve to spend that much, its on a new system. And by new, I mean after a price drop. (Bought my ps2 in april of 2005)
 
Fuck no. I ain't buying a new TV until mine dies and a cheap 16:9 is the only answer.
I can never see myself paying more than $200 for a TV, and I'd prefer to keep it around $150.
 
SnakeXs said:
A quick look and I just saw quite a few 27-32" sets formuch less than 1K. Much much less. Hell, go look up the old HDTV thread and see bargains people got. If you don't want to buy a "tiny" set that's your problem, but if you can buy games and next-gen consoles, a HD set to play them on isn't far off.
Click to expand...

Brand new 27 inch Samsung CRT HDTV for $108 at Target ftw.

I still play 4:3 games, but 16:9 is a lot nicer, doesn't feel as "cramped."
 
Red Scarlet said:
You're rich and a dvdphile. You don't count!
Click to expand...

WRONG again! I'm not rich, I just got a job, and a big screen and no babies (child support is killer!). From here on out, there is no excuse for not having widescreen support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[Insider Gaming] PlayStation Games on PC Took 3 Years to Earn $300M
2 3 4 5 6
255
2K
Wolzard replied
Zelda needs to be zelda again
Opinion  2 3 4 5
247
383
Effigenius replied
Square Enix Needs to Modernize Its IP, Former Exec Says
Opinion Game Dev  2
67
111
Liopleurodon replied
Saints Row 3&4 is $2 on the eShop
22
372
RPS37 replied
Rebs Gaming: Halo 2 & 3 Remakes Are In Development
40
372
Arachnid replied
Top Bottom