Game News The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Patch 1.1 Notes

[Twinkle]

Something I will say though - I'm disappointed with is the imminent death of 16:10 (1920x1200) in favor of 16:9 (1920x1080).

I feel your pain, bro. 16:10 is a spiritual successor of monocle CGA resolution, 16:9 is popamoleness lobbied by TV companies, console overlords and greedy jews who want to cut down manufacturing costs.
Another plus for oldfags is that f.e. with 1920x1200 monitor you can set 1600x1200 ingame. Sure, you'll get pillarboxing but on the other hand zero distortion or blurriness due to pixel scaling.

 

[dr. one]

The black bars are annoying and it shouldn't have been a big deal to not have them.

for the time being, you can try this utility which removes the bars and does so hassle-free. the bars will still be there for inventory etc. screens, unless you want them stretched out.
may not work with every version of the game, but it´ s worth givin´ it a shot.

 

[villain of the story]

I'll leave another example here and many more may come on demand, just because Kraszu is that special.

But go on, keep deluding yourself about how this is also Crytek doing it wrong. I guess I can demonstrate a decade of games doing it wrong.

But just to entertain the idea that the "correct" way to do it would be to actually cut the image at top and bottom instead of scaling it to fit widescreen into 4:3, here is how it would look:

And if you need explanation why that one is plain retarded, well that says something.

I have nothing against a preference for 4:3 or against widescreen but trying to justify it with inane bullshit is dumb-dumb area.

 

[villain of the story]

Something I will say though - I'm disappointed with is the imminent death of 16:10 (1920x1200) in favor of 16:9 (1920x1080). Now that's worthy of complaint - not the death of 4:3 - good riddance I say.

16:10 is dead? I'm seeing more monitors at 1920x1020 than x1080. I've thought that 1080i was mainly aimed at TVs.

What bothers me more is movies at ridiculous ultra wide aspects ratios like 2:1 or even more, wasting screen space even on a widescreen and giving a smaller image as a result. It feels like watching movies at tiny televisions at up close once again. So annoying.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

The ideal way to scale to different aspect ratios is to set a viewing arc that gives an equal area to any aspect. Anyone who has taken 8th grade math should know how to do this. Unfortunately, most game designers seem to not have taken 8th grade math.

 

[AlaCarcuss]

Something I will say though - I'm disappointed with is the imminent death of 16:10 (1920x1200) in favor of 16:9 (1920x1080). Now that's worthy of complaint - not the death of 4:3 - good riddance I say.

16:10 is dead? I'm seeing more monitors at 1920x1020 than x1080. I've thought that 1080i was mainly aimed at TVs.

What bothers me more is movies at ridiculous ultra wide aspects ratios like 2:1 or even more, wasting screen space even on a widescreen and giving a smaller image as a result. It feels like watching movies at tiny televisions at up close once again. So annoying.

Well, don't know what it's like where you are, but looking at my local online retailer's catalog right now, I see 2 x 24" @ 16:10 (1920x1200) and about 30 available @ 16:9 (1920x1080). The 16:9's are older models too, so probably just clearing old stock.

Yes, I'm afraid Twinkle is correct. It's all about cost of manufacturing and they're not about to give up the 16:9 of HDTV and movies.

 

[Kraszu]

I'll leave another example here and many more may come on demand, just because Kraszu is that special.

But go on, keep deluding yourself about how this is also Crytek doing it wrong. I guess I can demonstrate a decade of games doing it wrong.

But just to entertain the idea that the "correct" way to do it would be to actually cut the image at top and bottom instead of scaling it to fit widescreen into 4:3, here is how it would look:

And if you need explanation why that one is plain retarded, well that says something.

I have nothing against a preference for 4:3 or against widescreen but trying to justify it with inane bullshit is dumb-dumb area.

lol where did I said to cut the UI? Does the UI get cut in your second gif think about it for a minute before posting more screenshots. You really think that physics doesn't allow you to add 300 pixels to 1600:900 to make the visible space bigger on 1600:1200, just think about it for a minute, and yes games do it incorrectly because developers don't want to make 4:3 image bigger or carter to all aspect ratios (more high on 4:3 more width on 16: 9) because that would be more work not because there is some magic that prevents you to add more visible space vertically.

 

[villain of the story]

Ok, I am dropping it. You are an idiot and have no idea what you are talking about.

And it had nothing to do with UI but considering I'm talking to a moron, I should have made that clear, obviously.

 

[Kraszu]

The only problem is that you don't understand what more heigh less width means, that is how I had described the way that it should be done multiple times. That might be beyond your mental capability but cutting heigh doesn't show what adding more heigh but having less width would look like. I had said that 16: 9 res should have less vertical space then 4:3 res not that 16: 9 on 4:3 should have less vertical space then 16: 9 on 16: 9 monitor ffs, obviously they should look the same just have black bars.

 

[Kraszu]

edit: Here's a comparison of using a widescreen resolution on a letterbox screen and using a letterbox resolution on a widescreen, frames resized from 1600x1200, 1600x1000 and 1920x1200, 1600x1200, taken straight from TW1:.

otice how you actually get a smaller image in the first.

That is because it is done incorrectly you should see less vertical wise in 16: 9 but more width wise, nothing to do with aspect ratio just with how TW1 had implemented it. 1600:900 image has the same proportions on 4:3, and 16: 9 it is just smaller or require bigger monitor on 4:3.

4:3 being incorrectly applied =/= 4:3 being inherently worse.

That could lead to some confusion what I did mean is that you should see more vertical wise, and less width wise in 4:3 then on 16: 9 that I had stated on couple occasions. 4:3 is done incorrectly not scaling of it to 1600:900. Proportions of visible area to hight are wrong in 4:3 res not in 16: 9 res.