Post #31, by ViRGE:
All of this whining about widescreen is amusing. "Widescreen" monitors aren't wide, they're short. You bought a monitor that's fit for watching movies, not playing games; computer monitors are 4:3, not 16:10, so don't be surprised when stuff gets cut off because your monitor is shorter than others. And this goes doubleplus so for multiplayer games, it's not the job of the developers to give you a leg-up(seeing more) just because you bought an inferior monitor.

And here we have the real explanation.

"Widescreen" monitors aren't wide, they're short.

. That is the honest truth. Now, look online at the widescreen camp & you’ll find all sorts of nifty viewpoints that are wrong, but that perpetuate this thinking that widescreens are better when they aren’t. You’ll see people saying that if you have a width of 1600 pixels on a 4:3 and a 1200 height then a widescreen 16:9 will be better because a 1200 height becomes a 2133 width, OBVIOUSLY BETTER RIGHT???? LOLOLOLOL!!! Another theory states that people view life through their eyes panoramically to begin with so Widescreen makes more sense & allows you to see more naturally. Yeah, I bet a flight-sim guy just loves it when he goes 90 degrees to the horizon and suffers from less horizon visibility than naturally seen; and yeah I never look at the ground or the sky, ever, ever, ever… LOLOLOLOL!!!

The problem with all these theories is that they are all mind games. 16:9 in a 22” monitor is WAY WAY SMALLER than 4:3 in a 22” monitor.
Let’s do the math together, shall we?
Televisions and monitors are measured diagonally. Go to Circuit City or anywhere & look at any two displays that are of different aspect ratios but claim to be the same size. Most people that own widescreens would like to believe that 16:9 vs 4:3 is akin to 16:9 vs 12:9. But that’s just not true. It is far more realistic to consider it as 16:9 vs 16:12. The 4:3 is simply more real estate (PERIOD). Look at any two sets that claim the same diagonal size & the 4:3 is *ALWAYS LARGER, EVERY TIME*!!!!!

What’s happened here is that you have been utterly fooled by the propaganda machine of advertising & marketing. A widescreen television is one thing. I own one. A widescreen monitor is another thing altogether & I’ll explain that too. A television is made to be enjoyed by the family, it is typically 36” and can be enjoyed by all. A monitor is typically 20” and although because of distances and resolution things might seem the same, it’s a computer, not a television. In particular, LCDs are terrible for movies. The black level on almost every LCD ever sold is of absolutely horrible quality compared to a CRT. Shadows therefore are not deep; they are shallow and the number of dark colors compared to a CRT on the average LCD is so pathetic it isn’t even worth my time to load up a movie into the DVD tray. LCDs STILL SUCK ASS, unless you are willing to spend well over a grand on your display. Everything less is shit.

The marketing people don’t want you to know this. You don’t want to know this. So you fool yourself. You say, WOW my LCD looks great!!! I’m so Pumped, this is AWESOME! WOOOOHOOO for me!!!! But what you fail to notice is that you’re just blind by choice. Here’s a perfect example. I went to my brother’s house. He has a 26” RCA television and I could barely stand it. Not because it was small, but because the picture-quality was so terrible. Did my brother know this? Of course not: he looks at it every day & its fine to him. But it’s a piece of shit. One day, because I was sick of telling him about it; I asked him to bring his TV over so that we could watch 2 channels at once. I didn’t really want to do that, but our dad used to do so on presidential election night, so he did it. Side by side, he could finally see how shitty his set really was. It’s an LCD. He didn’t pay too much for it. They are getting better. But a CRT almost always beats an LCD. If you don’t believe me, watch a horror movie on two computers (one with LCD & one with CRT) because horror movies are usually filmed for nightscenes. The LCD will look like shit compared to the excellent black levels of the CRT.

So that’s 2 things that are completely and utterly inferior about an LCD versus a CRT. The LCD *IS* short & it *DOESN’T* have as good of black levels as the CRTs.

Knowing this, why in the hell would Take2 or anyone else for that matter really be concerned with a bunch of idiots like yourself that just don’t know any better. They made the game for 4:3 because they made the game on CRTs that were 4:3. They did that because the quality is perceptibly better. If you don’t know that then you’re a fucking idiot! But that’s not THEIR FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s yours for being a fucking idiot!!! The problem is that you brought into the hype like a moron & think that wide is better. It isn’t. It is and has always been smaller. You’ve just been too stupid to realize it.

Now obviously movie film has been recorded to 16:9 letterbox forever, but just because you miss stuff watching a movie on 4:3 doesn’t mean you miss anything on a video game & especially not this one. You are *NOT* missing anything. You’re just not getting your gay little gimmick fix. Anyway, 16:9 has been & will always be a smaller ratio. Math hasn’t changed even if the marketing people have persuaded you that it has.

Post 38, by PropheT:
All of this whining about widescreen is amusing. "Widescreen" monitors aren't wide, they're short. You bought a monitor that's fit for watching movies, not playing games; computer monitors are 4:3, not 16:10, so don't be surprised when stuff gets cut off because your monitor is shorter than others. And this goes doubleplus so for multiplayer games, it's not the job of the developers to give you a leg-up(seeing more) just because you bought an inferior monitor

Ok, stupid time is over and it's time for the grown-ups to talk now.

You really haven't the foggiest notion of what you're talking about. Widescreen monitors ship with almost every OEM system out there now. Almost every single decent laptop for sale comes with a widescreen monitor.

Standard resolution screens have been on their way out for a long time now, and widescreens have been standard for about two years. This is not new. Widescreens are not for movies only. And they sure as feck aren't "inferior monitors".

http://www.newegg.com/Store/Category.aspx?Category=19&name=Monitors

That's newegg's monitor main page. Notice how every monitor on the page is widescreen.

Every monitor in the building I work in at the business I work for as widescreen monitors. Your 4:3 monitor is outdated.

In the 60’s, people wore tie-dye. In the 70’s, open collars and bell-bottom pants. In the 80’s, parachute pants. In the 90’s, pants down so the underwear showed.

Just because something is popular doesn’t make it a wise decision you fuckin’ Sheeple moron!

Post #48, by Term:
Athlon XP 3000+, 1 Gig RAM, X1600 Pro 512Mb

So my system pretty much sucks, and here's what I get on Fraps (only tried the demo, though):

Avg: 15.258 @ 1024x768 all maxed
Avg: 22.096 @ 1024x768 mid settings

I'd say that this is nearly unplayable, but I didn't expect anything else. It looks gorgeous though, finally a game it was worth getting a SM3.0 card for. Too bad I'll still have to upgrade my entire system in order to play the game. But still, I preordered the CE to have the Big Daddy figurine remind me getting off my lazy ass and earn the money required for a beefed up system

Your system doesn’t suck at all. In fact, think about what you have & judge it by the standards of 3 years ago. That would be $10,000-$20,000 system you have there. Judge it 3 years from now, you’re right; it sucks.

The price for gaming is to be on the bleeding edge of technology. It used to be that computers had to be upgraded every six months. I mean, it was practically mandatory. Really. It was insane. I once purchased Wing Commander 1 & 2 for a Pentium1 computer & I was pretty happy about it. I brought it home & at first I was playing this weird colorful arcade game that was going like 10 times as fast as it should have been going. After awhile, I realized, this isn’t an arcade game within the game, THIS IS THE GAME!!! Today, the same thing is happening with Double & quad cores. I have a lot of trouble playing Thief3 because of my OVERPOWERED computer. But technology isn’t going to just wait because we’re done making stuff.

Let’s say you are 20 years old this year. That means when you were born in 1987, people were renting VHS movies at the store, CDs were brand new things & most music was still on LP or Tape. I purchased blank TDK all metallic blank cassette tapes for $14 each because that was the quality of the day. Microwaves were just becoming mainstream. I owned an Apple IIGS which had something like a 256K of Ram or some shit & ran at a blazing 2.8MEGAHERTZ, (That’s 1000 times slower than today’s systems). Before that, my dad had a Texas Instruments Ti-99 computer with a cassette tape for a hard-drive & I made some animation on it which required me to tell each individual pixel where it was & what color it was, line by line. It took me a month to make a 2” dragon model flap it’s wings over several repeating frames.

So now, here you dumb asses are crying & whining about change???????


Let me tell you, when the next real operating system comes out that truly begins to harness the power of 64bit & you have to go buy another system that can handle 64Gigs of memory, then a thousand gigs, just I like had to with Megabytes; then you’ll find yourself upgrading every 6 months to keep up with the technology because technology never ever stops.

STOP WHINING YOU BABY ASS LITTLE GIRLS!! This is just a minor, insignificant, little, itty, bitty, tiny tremor, compared to where we are about to go.
This comment was edited on Aug 22, 03:38.