what is ultrawide gaming like?
ultra wide.
A meme
>>743814946Ultra gay
>>743815114somebody told me it's more cinematic like you're watching a movie
>>743814946Better.
>>743814946Its ultrawide. Its overdoing it, but I'm never going back, like a good goy
worse than VR
>>743814946I play mostly RPGs and action games and find it a little disappointing. It's more demanding to run and the extra peripheral doesnt add much. It's nice for MMOs though. I'd rather have two monitors instead of an UW
I have to buy my clothes and chairs from a special store.
>>743814946You're buying a gaming device that will limit the amount of games you can game
>>743815147ScreenX is shit too
>>743815732pretty much every game now has a widescreen fix
Very nice, especially if you’re willing to go the extra mile to mod it into older games. In these cases you usually need to do tinkering anyway so it’s no big deal. Played Dead Space 2 on an ultrawide OLED a few weeks ago and it was great.
>>743815732I remember back in 2004 when I got my first 16:9 CRT and I couldn’t play my old 4:3 games anymore.
I have one. I prefer my 48" oled. But it's still great most of the time just a tiny bit too wide. 20:9 would be better.16:9 is fine but it feels a bit too narrow instead. But on the oled TV I can just set a custom resolution that's in between the resolutions. Can't really do that on a native ultrawide unless it's also an oled one (however soon I'll upgrade)Is it a meme? Absolutely fucking not since just like I've said even on a big 16:9 tv it can be nice to use a slightly wider ratio. You get more physical fov without sacrificing distant targets and having obvious distortions.People are fucking monkey brainlets and just decide their stance on anything in 5 secs and then never reconsider, fuck all of these nigers in particular..
>dude, i fucking love the fish eye effect!
>>743816493But enough about 16:9 or 4:3 users.
>>743816394It's a meme. Large format 16:9 will always be vastly superior, because you don't lose 33% of your horizontal FOV for no reason.
>>743815669I hope you soon, fatty.
>>743816618You're retarded. I see absolutely brainlet claim this sometimes and it physically hurt because of how retarded it is.You literally gain field of view.. that's the entire point.
>>743816751>You literally gain field of view..No, you lose it. I did say horizontal when I meant vertical, though.
>>743814946Like this
>>743814946Good for games with wide field of view and visual depth. Bad for everything else.
>>743816881Yeah I thought you meant vertical, but that's still totally and unequivocally fucking wrong.
>>743817006You struggle with dimensions, huh?
>>743817054No, you fail to understand how videogames works. You literally don't lose any fov. You're retarded. You're thinking about movies, and a specific few games with bad ultrawide implementations will crop vertically when they don't need to.
>>743814946How about this... Now bear with me...You get a 16:9 monitor, just as wide your ultragay monitor...With a new FOV... And wow, look at that. Even more sky and cityscape.
>>743814946Amazing if its fully supported and actually works how it should. Many games have half arsed support, where it renders properly, but UI elements are stretched, missplaced, or even missing. Unfortunately even more common is games dont support it at all. You wont be able to set your resolution to ultrawide easily and its often upto mods to fix this. IMO dont get ultra wide if youve never had one. Its hard to go back to 16:9 and youl just be more angry on average.
>>743816618Early 16:9 games also cut vertical FOV though I never saw anyone claim widescreen being a "meme", even though it had zero reason to exist unlike 21:9 which already has closer to a century of content via cinematic widescreen. In fact I played a 2006 game just yesterday that was giving me Vert- when played in 2560x1440. Obviously later games and mods fix the situation for 16:9 and 21:9. That’s the appeal of PC gaming for those that aren’t console refugees.
>>743817186No, you don't understand how viewport projections work. You don't magically gain FOV with ultrawide, you lose it. >>743817292Zoomers cannot comprehend the idea of FOV settings, and so to them the ultrawide seems like magic.
>>743817381You're retarded.
>>743817578I do really hope that one day you figure out how FOV works.
>>743817708Speak for yourself, retard and keep coping. You literally don't get it yourself.
>>743817708That’s not a proper ultrawide solution due to the reduced vertical FOV. This whole argument is retarded as it works just the same for arguing there was zero reason to let go of 4:3 in the first place.
>>743817578Most competitive games don’t allow 21:9 for exactly this reason. Consoles are two generations away from getting 21:9 support so they’d get absolutely skullfucked by players with more visibility.
>>743814946It's great if you're strapped for cash and want a bigger monitor, ultrawide is ultimately a budget alternative to a huge ass 4k monitor / TV on your desk.
>>743817976>Most competitive gamesWho cares.
>>743817906>That’s not a proper ultrawide solutionI mean, it is. That's what the ultrawide "solution" is, it's just a different FOV setting due to the way Hor+ is defined.The "reduced" vertical FOV is the same as it would be in any game that correctly gives you access to the FOV setting. Because 21:9 is a vertically reduced aspect ratio compared with 16:9, and 21:9 panels cost more than their 16:9 equivalents.
>>743814946Why do this when we have VR already?
>>743817708kek POORFAGGOT
increasing the fov on 16:9 to match what an ultrawide can accomplish would just create a fisheye lens effect right?
>>743814946Most games don't support it.Those that do support it are often poorly optimized so the performance is ass.It's also not great for side by side windows. You think it will be, but then you actually get it and realize you instinctively want to use the whole screen.I find the experience mixed. It's cool when it works but it's a huge pain in the ass for everything else.
>>743818115Yes, exactly. Which is why they're more optimal to get the best field of view that still looks natural. That's why it's better to reduce the fov a bit in a full 21:9 ratio.
>>743818115They would both have the same issues unless you switch to something like a panini projection. It'd be less noticeable on the 21:9 screen just because 33% of the screen is cut off, you'd still have the same issues with a square viewport attempting to represent a 3D scene.
>>743818217You fail to take into account the fact that the wider resolution gives you physical fov, so no it's not the same. Panini only gives wider fov a bigger advantage.
>>743818319>the wider resolution gives you physical fov,3840 is wider than 3440, though.
>>743814946ultra wide
>>74381807621:9 doesn’t imply a vert- solution any more than 16:9 implies a vert- solution respective to 4:3. 25 years ago many 4:3 games released bad implementations of widescreen where they’d crop the vertical resolution instead of simply "crushing" the 4:3 pic for anamorphic widescreen and then letting the screen stretch it or by rendering a native 16:9 picture. The latter obviously became standard once processing power and developer support became better. The situation isn’t any different for 21:9 or any other ratio for that matter.
>>743818380The ratio =/= the resolution (I can't believe this has to be said, wtf).You can't beat having literally MORE screen to display stuff on: >>743817880
No good reason for me to back to playing my vidyas at bottom pic format
It's okay maybe 1/5th of the time spent gaming,and even less when you're not.I knew going in that stuff like CAD would be a bit annoying on an UW, but other work/creation/etc. stuff workflows experientially suffered as well.Maybe coders love them - who knows.I say this as someone who got a nice one for cheap from a rich friend leaving the country, so that's my bias.
>>743818471I never said they did imply vert-. I'm saying that due to the way hor+ is defined, the "same" FOV setting on 16:9 will be different to 21:9, and to 4:3 for that matter. Because viewport settings are comically outdated for modern monitors, which is why panini isn't standard, and we have a whole host of basic issues like developers assuming your DPI and fucking up your UI elements, which didn't exist 20 years ago.>>743818474And you will always get more screen from 16:9. Because 21:9 screens are literally just 16:9 screens that are a third shorter, so if you just buy the properly cut display it works out cheaper. It's like how 4:3 isn't worth using anymore because so few displays use it, and so the prices are absurd, almost as bad as 1:1 screens.
>>743814946ultrawide monitors are the equivalent to these things solves nothing and just makes you look like a fag
>>743814946Nice in single player, distracting for multiplayer. zelda botw was amazing when I emulated it in ultrawide 60fps. Support is limited though, expect to either try hacks and workarounds or settle for boxed in 16:9 in some situations.
>16:9 vs 21:9why not both>?
>>743814946It's a meme.
The real answer is 32:9 or bust.
>>74381514724fps is more cinematic too yet no one likes to play at that framerate
>>743814946I wouldn't want to go back to normal for most games. It doesn't really provide any advantage during the gameplay, but it just looks a lot nicer.For some games, it's really punishing though and you'll want to play the in window mode. Stellaris for example. There's just too much shit popping up left and right and the interface is spread across the whole screen, so in ultrawide you just lose track very quickly.
>>743818784Ultrawide monitors are usually the usual 16:9 size+added screen real estate on the sides to preserve ppi, that’s 27" for 1440p and 32" for 4K for 16:9 and 34" for 1440p and 39" for 4K 16:9. There are obviously larger 16:9 and 21:9 panels for those that want them. Either way, monitors and TVs keep getting wider to match cinema screens of the past which the masses already consider peak immersiveness, and vertical physical size is less important. Again, vertical resolution and FOV remains the same even if the horizontal area is increased.
>>743819509>cinema screens of the pastMeanwhile cinema screens of the present are IMAX slop, you should go look up their aspect ratio.Vertical size is the most important element of screens. Vertical resolution does NOT remain the same, that's the whole point. A 4k monitor is the same price as a 1440p ultrawide, you might have a point with 32:9 4k slop, but even then those screens are tiny and still cost more than a comically overpriced 8k monitor is right now when you consider 8k is twice the real estate.
>>743814946I got 21:9 monitor from work and I really like it.Is it a game changer? No. Does it work with everything out of box? No.But when it works, it's a lot of fun.In shooters it does give advantage tho.This might be my very specific observation, but to me it feels like IPS works really good with ultra wide, since the IPS backlight bleed is usually in the corners and as a result on ultra wide it's not as noticeable, as you pay less attention to the corners.
>>743814946Higher immersive potential when the aspect ratio works and is one of the few panels with an aggressive curve, sucks when you have black borders and it's oled. Made old games more enjoyable to replay because it's almost like you're inside the game if you get a big enough monitor. 16:9 is otherwise better allround and you get more fps for the same image quality in modern games if your gpu isnt amazing
>>743820014If your whole argument boils down to "why buy 21:9 when you can get a 16:9 screen for cheaper?" we aren’t discussing aspect ratios anymore, we are discussing affordability. Just like 4:3 screens were cheaper back in the day 16:9 enjoys the economies of scale pushing down prices. That doesn’t change the fact that the premium 1440p is 21:9 3440x1440p and the premium 4K is 5120x2160p.
It's great for 2D games
Ultrawide arguments are so retarded.>You see more stuff!Yeah and guess what, you'll see even more stuff if you increase the aspect ratio to any arbitrary amount. Try 60:9 in that case and see how that turns out. That's even more stuff so should be even better right? My guess is you'll draw a line there because you subjectively don't like how it looks and I'm going to draw a line beyond 16:9. It is a decent, wide, cinematic panel shape that provides plenty of horizontal space without making it a stretched out oblong and incidentally also closely matches natural human FOV. Actually I might go as far as 18:9 aka 2:1, which I think would provide a very reasonable and aesthetically pleasing experience, with twice the space horizontally as vertically. No chance I'm going any longer than that.
ITT: poorfagsDamn, son
>>743820928Pro-ultra wide arguments>it's coolAnti-ultra wide arguments>nooooo, I don't have it, so you objectively don't need it!!!
>>743821109Yeah must suck to be so poor you can only afford half a screen.
>>743814946Been using a 38 inch UW for just over a year and it's the best decision I ever made, granted I use it for equal parts productivity and gaming but 21:10 is the perfect ratio at that size to fill peripheral vision imoAlso a lot more games support it natively than I was expecting. Played Ori 2 and felt like the game was made for it.
>>74381494621:9 is perfection but every single game fucks up the UI. They put it on the edges of the screen so its more straining to keep track of stuff. So when you play a game that lets you keep the UI at a normal 16:9 ratio while having that extra peripheral vision from ultrawide its perfection.
>>743814946Some older games need meme mods in order for them to work but anything that came out in the past few years usually supports it natively.I also prefer a single widescreen instead of two 1920x1080 from before. That way I can multitask on websites without having an idle screen on the side when gaming.Pretty subjective but I haven't gone back in 6 years.
It does what it says on the tin but I havent found a game where it's actually mindblowing or a major upgrade. I got mine free from work otherwise I'd never have bought one
>>743814946shit because i can't afford it
>>743822375Depends on the game. Some games have 16:9 locked UI. In some games you can actually pick the aspect ratio of UI.In Call of Duty you could adjust the boundaries to UI since at least 2012.
>>743822375this anon gets it
>>743822375How can you claim 21:9 is perfection while also admitting you can't comfortably view the entire screen?
The anons arguing against 21:9 are the same breed that would have gone against 16:9 when 4:3 was the meta back in the day.There are only upsides and going back from 21:9 to 16:9 feels like going back from 16:9 to 4:3.
I imagine 16:9 on a 21:9 display would work pretty well with mini LED or even just basic dimming zones (if they stopped being dynamic)?
>>743819509>>743820014Cinemas are repackaging 4:3 as the greatest thing, they just market it as IMAX after the cameras used. They are correct. Cinemas went wide to a large extend a technical constraint, it wasn't an esthetic choice. Wide composition is restrictive and hard to pull off and looks like shit most of the time. In painting, artists have no such constraints because they must use a new canvas every time, and they overwhelmingly chose squarer formats. Only 5% reach the relative width of 16:9 or more and they are almost exclusively landscapes. Centuries of compositions have proven that 1.2 to 1.3 is ideal to most situations, but the present goyim have been accustomed from birth to wide shots.
>>743823003>The anons arguing against 21:9 are the same breed that would have gone against 16:9 when 4:3 was the meta back in the day.Actually no I embraced 16:9. I always wanted one, even before we could afford to get one, and was happy when we did. Now as an adult I can afford any monitor I like and I do not want 21:9 or any other absurdly long thin screen. It subjectively does not look good to my eyes. It looks silly, gimmicky, awkward. I quite simply do not want to look at some long ass oblong thrice as wide as it is tall.Other things I knew I wanted and would make a difference before I tried them:>OLED>HDR>4KWhat I cannot fathom the point of:>ultrawide>refresh rates above 240hz
>>743823245>>743820014>>743819509So what you're really saying is that cinematic aspect ratios were developed to capture the asian market
>>743823245Agreed completely. Go watch Twin Peaks, then go watch The Return, and try telling me you don't miss the squarer composition.
>>743822375I’ve seen some claim the UI being off to the side being a pro because of less visual clutter and frankly I see the appeal in some games where the UI isn’t really necessary most of the time.
>>743824008I do appreciate the homage to the original TV broadcast aspect ratio but that’s all the appeal 4:3 has these days.
if they made something like a 54" 21:9 5k resolution OLED I'd get one.
>>743814946>what is ultrawide gaming like?dice roll for one of picrel
>>743826048I think they are abandoning the 45" 5K2K due to lack of demand. It’s simply too big for a monitor.
>>743826668It's not remotely big enough for a monitor. The reason they abandon those things is because they cost more to ship and they want to sell tiny garbage screens instead that are unfit for purpose.
>>743826668likely people don't want to pay that much money for a woled
Would be cool if games played around with aspect ratios more instead of just fitting your screen (or not doing it) 100% of the time.Films sometimes switch aspect ratio to frame a certain shot better and it's cool every time.
>>743827573Clair Obscur had ultrawide cutscenes in 16:9.I don't know what was the default behavior, as I played with ClairObscurFix, but you could play it properly without black bars on ultra wide.
>>743827094If they wanted to maximize profit they’d sell screens with garbage ppi, so TV sized 4K screens.
>>743826668At those sort of widths people want more vertical space.
>>743828786Yeah, you're retarded and know NOTHING about screens.What is expensive is WEIGHT and SIZE. Because that affects shipping, which is the largest expense. High PPI screens are a dream for monitor companies, if possible they would want everyone to use a 5 inch screen for maximum profit, you can fit a million of them in a shipping container, and that's why a tiny phone screen can have a massive resolution and yet only cost 20 bucks.Conversely, monitor companies HATE size. They want to sell the smallest possible screen they can get away with, because that gives them much larger profits. Your screen is small because you are a golem with no understanding of PPD.
>>743814946Like gaming, but ultrawide
>>743814946like turning your FOV way up and having a lot of shit you dont look at with the added benefit of all straight lines appearing curved
>>743829092Any screen with a PPI over 96 is a scam anyway.
In my opinion it looks better whilst gaming, but also the desktop space is more efficient by being easily able to work in splitscreen.It's also much nicer/sleek as an interior decoration item.
>>743829092You work the warehouse, I work the office. You are completely unaware of yields which is why smaller OLEDs than 55" took a full decade to appear.
>>743814946it's super cool on games that actually support itit's ass on games that don'tI mained an ultrawide for like 4-5 years and only recently swapped back to 16:9 because for most of those 4-5 years i was autism hyperfixate gaming a few games that all happened to support 21:9, but now that I'm back to variety gaming it's time to come homeone thing people don't always forsee is that ultrawide can have weird performance hits. Some games actually are harder to run in 3440x1440 than they are in 3840x2160I'm not sure by what magic that happens, my guess is that the widescreen is forcing some FoV that renders more of the game? Or maybe the engine just shits itself with weird resolutions. Ultrawide can force some games to run in a wider FoV than they allow natively without cheats/mods, conversely sometimes they just cut off the vertical height and screw you over.
>>743829316In the context of monitors not at all. Maybe for TVs, but even there I notice the difference.
>>743829360OLEDs are a different scam entirely, now you're getting into the realm of "premium products" where they only offer large sizes as a value proposition for early adopters. The first OLED TV was 11 inches.The reason the TV market is restricted to the 40" market is because that's what retards want. It doesn't matter that 40" is comically small for 4k in a living room setting, you actually need 80" at minimum there for acceptable picture quality. Are they going to sell you a cheap 80" screen? Hell no, it costs 4x more to ship than 4k, so it costs 4x the price. Shipping is the be all, end all of screen technology. It's why CRTs died, and low quality displays replaced them.
regardless if you are a hidamari sketch fan or not make sure to see the proper distance from your screen.
>>743814946I ended up with an ultra wide that my dad used for work previously. It's pretty nice but >>743815114 is right it's ultimately a meme feature that will bloat up technical troubleshooting you have to go through for basic things like game streaming or random games stretching instead of letterboxing, and if you wouldn't want to see letterboxing ever definitely never ever ever get an ultrawide because a ton of stuff doesn't support it period. It also functionally makes it kinda feel like you're always getting slightly worse performance than you should be relative to the game and graphics card. But like ultimately yeah it can look pretty amazing to have the game blown up across your whole field of view. But I'll also game stream to my 16:9 TV because I want to be in my recliner and really not miss the extra resolution much
>>743829710>The reason the TV market is restricted to the 40" marketnigga is posting from 2011
>>743829710>OLEDs are a scamYou could’ve stated in the first post that you’re an unmedicated brownoid and spared me the effort.
>>743830134Let me guess, you're very proud of your 65" TV.
>>743830452the only tv I have is a 50" plasma from 2013 I haven't turned on in almost 2 years.It's just you can literally look up which tv sizes are popular
>>743829348It also lets you enjoy kino more optimally. Well unless you're watching TV shows or IMAX.
stupid and pointless, mostly.
>>743830918>9% of TVs are the bare minimum size required for 4k, a smaller marketshare than 15 year old TVs>he thinks this proves his point instead of mineAmazing, you really are fucking retarded.
>>743829348>mfw this screenshot looks better on my flat 16:9 oled because ultrawides have issues with panel uniformity and curved panels are already a problemno thanks im not interested in multiplying variables and problems while also making it less convenient for me to game and take up even more space on my desk. mainly because im not a performative faggot.
>>743831984Well the rest of the post is completely wrong too.Also you can just sit closer. Even if you were right about high res on a too small screen being bad, instead of non optimal, which you aren't even.
>>743832443>instead of non optimal,No, it's bad. Nobody sits 3 feet from their TV in a living room, which is how close you'd have to sit for a proper image.
>>743814946ultra based, but a lot of shit games don't support it because devs are incompetent shitters who can't calculate FOVs for arbitrary resolutions.
>>743832153Whenever I open an UW screenshot I'm just annoyed at how much of the screen is missing because the retard bought a short monitor.
>>743832542The point is that is suboptimal, aka you lost some detail, but still looks better than the alternative. Learn the difference.
>>743832659Losing detail is paying for pixels you aren't using.
>>743832727Buy a 1080p tv then
>>743832608I didn't buy a 5k2k because i'd also need to buy a 5080 at the very minimum. I will one day.
>>743831830Ideally, you're setup should have an ultrawide as main monitor, and 16:9 tv hung on the wall for tranime, tv, etc.
monitors should be 4:3 or 5:4, widescreen is retarded meme that appeared in gaming only because of movies and tvs being sold like that
>>743833405ideally you have a 4:3, 16:9 and 21:9 screens. Or just have one 21:9 and tank the black bars which are invisible anyway if you're in a dark room and bought an OLED.
>>743833587So ultrameme works only when using a meme display type? Got it.
it feels kino>oh but the UI!not such a problem if you are sitting correctly in relation to the monitor
so the contrarian option is UW?
>>743833842You must shit in a plastic bag.
>>743829710You will 100% notice the difference between 1440p and 4k at 40". I promise you that. Unless your vision is impaired, or you live in a castle and you watch your TV from the opposite end of the banquet hall, you will notice the difference.
>>743833587what is the 4:3 for
id probably get an ultrawide if they werent all curved. curved monitors are nauseating.also ultrawide monitors are useless unless they are 4k. and they are usually a low refresh rate. if you want a truly good ultrawide monitor they are like $800. just increasingly becomes a questionable purchase. i bought a 27" $130 180hz 1080p monitor. i only use one monitor it's enough.
>>743834281Games and TV shows that are only available in 4:3 obviously.
>>743834347The curve is necessary to fill your field of vision.
>>743834347There's some flat ones, but they are indeed rare.
