An annoying trend in modern PC games

[TrekkiesUnite118]

So I have a 4:3 gaming LCD from about 5-6 years ago as my primary computer monitor. The max resolution of it is 1280x1024. Most of the time this isn't an issue but there's a trend that's been going on with modern PC games that really annoys me. The 4:3 resolutions aren't the real resolutions as described, but instead 1024x768 (or even worse 800x600 or 640x480) upscaled to 1280x1024. Not only does this look bad, but it severely limits your view by giving you a zoomed in look. Meanwhile if I play in 1280x720 I can see more and the resolution is higher.

Here's a perfect example from Dota 2:

4:3:



16:9:



The 16:9 image is actually running in the advertised 1280x720 resolution, where as the 4:3 image is clearly lower resolution (probably 1024x768) and upscaled. The horizontal resolution of both images should be the same, but instead the 4:3 image does the equivalent of cutting off the sides of the 1280x720 image and blows that up. What it should do instead is have the same horizontal resolution, but show more on the top and bottom.

So do any other PC gamers find this rather annoying?

[gamevet]

Get a new monitor, you hippy!

[TrekkiesUnite118]

That doesn't change the fact that 1280x1024 is a higher resolution than 1280x720. I should see at least the same amount of image if not more.

[Guntz]

The other alternative is don't play modern PC games, most suck anyway.

Give your Dreamcast some love trekkies.

[Chilly Willy]

1280x1024 monitors are not 4:3, they're 5:4. I've got a 1280x1024 monitor I use for my CDX, and the 5:4 aspect ratio makes everything look a bit stretched vertically.

[Tripredacus]

So what is my CRT? Mine native resolution is 1280x960, which seems to be an odd resolution. Some games don't even have that one as an option, but I haven't noticed any upscaling things going on. I usually will pick 1024x768 if there is no option. My monitor is capable of 1280x1024 but everything looks a little off or slightly stretched in that mode.

[Soulis]

gaming LCD

There's no such thing.

[TrekkiesUnite118]

There's no such thing.

Having under 2ms response time is pretty nice for gaming. It pretty much eliminates ghosting and it doesn't have a perceived input lag as far as I can tell either.

[Soulis]

Having under 2ms response time is pretty nice for gaming. It pretty much eliminates ghosting and it doesn't have a perceived input lag as far as I can tell either.

You still have motion blur to deal with.

Anyway, i find this site very interesting: http://www.blurbusters.com/

[Chilly Willy]

So what is my CRT? Mine native resolution is 1280x960, which seems to be an odd resolution. Some games don't even have that one as an option, but I haven't noticed any upscaling things going on. I usually will pick 1024x768 if there is no option. My monitor is capable of 1280x1024 but everything looks a little off or slightly stretched in that mode.

1280x960 native means it's a 4:3 monitor. That's why things like weird in 1280x1024. When I said 1280x1024 are 5:4, I meant 1280x1024 NATIVE monitors. 1280x960 is an odd resolution because it's 4:3 - nearly all 1280 wide monitors are of the 1280x1024 native variety, so I don't think 1280x960 is a normal mode that anyone provides... which is probably your problem. If the software allows for a custom mode to be created, make a 1280x960 mode and it should make things look right.

[kool kitty89]

1280x1024 monitors are not 4:3, they're 5:4. I've got a 1280x1024 monitor I use for my CDX, and the 5:4 aspect ratio makes everything look a bit stretched vertically.

Yeah, since this is an LCD, I was thinking that too.

OTOH, with CRTs, you could easily (and very often did) have a 4:3 monitor running at non-square pixel resolutions, including 1280x1024 with a 4:3 screen (unless manually calibrated otherwise). A lot of older games either had an aspect ratio option or just assumed 4:3 for all resolutions. (more often the latter, and Quake instantly comes to mind for that, including things like 320x480, Tomb Raider 2 does this too -a 9x/NT compatible DirectX based game, mind you- up to 1440x900)


But on the main topic in general: it is worrying . . . I was planning on either using a nice old 20" workstation CRT for my next build or the 20" 1600x1200 used LCD I picked up a couple weeks ago.

I do kind of wonder if this isn't actually a 4:3 issue, but just something specific to certain resolutions or even 5:4 in general. Hell, it might even be a problem on the video driver end. (not totally the same thing, but I do know many HDTVs have false resolution limitations when put through HDMI -namely the 1365x768 sets that think they're 1280x720 native, and going analog with component/VGA works around this, but it would be weirder for a monitor to do that)


OTOH, if it really is an issue with games going 16:9 specific, that wouldn't just be a problem with specific aspect ratios or resolutions, but any of the many common options for PC monitor/laptop screens outside of 16:9. (ie 8:5, 4:3, 5:4, etc)

Perhaps the best alternatives (short of updates/patches) in those situations is going letterboxed in a 16:9 resolution native to your monitor, like 1280x720 in this case. (so it's still pixel perfect at least) Of course, you'll have to have your monitor/video drivers set up to maintain square pixel aspect ratio to avoid stretching said resolutions to full-screen. (often the default)

[Vector2013]

I have a Neptune CD, Saturn and DC (among other consoles). What is the best modern monitor/tv and setting (4:3 1024 x 768 ?) to use that won't stretch the image, make it look pixelly, basically give me the best overall image ?

Composite good enough, I don't feel like doing s-video mods or buying component adapters.

For instance, I guess there is no way of getting rid of that pink border on Eternal Champions ha.

Would a Sony google tv be good ? Guess not because it's widescreen (16:9 rectangle shaped tv ?) and might stretch it horizontally ?

[The Jackal]

"Annoying trend in modern PC Games"..piss-taking DRM is what gets on my nerves. If it isn't companies requiring you to be online all the time(EA with Diablo 3/Sim City) or services like Steam needing to be on to just to play(which eat up precious system resources, which mean alot when you're playing on a shitty rig), it's DRM that is so intrusive it can kill your PC; I know first hand, as a second-hand copy of Dreamfall installed StarForce, which on reboot, nearly killed my harddrive if not for Window 7;s system restore kicking in.

[ApolloBoy]

Composite good enough, I don't feel like doing s-video mods or buying component adapters.

Composite looks horrible on modern TVs, I'd at least pick up S-video cables for the Saturn and DC (those don't require mods!) since S-video is a nice step up from composite.

[kool kitty89]

Composite looks horrible on modern TVs, I'd at least pick up S-video cables for the Saturn and DC (those don't require mods!) since S-video is a nice step up from composite.

It ranges from tolerably decent to cheese grater on the eyes ugly for modern LCDs, with no real consistency based on price range of overall high/low-end nature. Some brands (on average) fare better than others though, and I seem to recall Phillips was more consistent about decent composite support.

Short of testing yourself, there's not much you can do to be sure.

Same goes for 240p support through component. (or the rare 240p via VGA discussed on Atariage a couple years back)