It was actually really nice to turn on the widescreen setting on the Xbox, and see most games use it (PS2 games didn't until quite late in the machine's life). I think the Xbox version of Soul Calibur 2 was the best for this reason; set to widescreen it backed up the camera slightly to give a wider view.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Battle of the Ports
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Asura View PostIt was actually really nice to turn on the widescreen setting on the Xbox, and see most games use it (PS2 games didn't until quite late in the machine's life). I think the Xbox version of Soul Calibur 2 was the best for this reason; set to widescreen it backed up the camera slightly to give a wider view.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Asura View PostIt was actually really nice to turn on the widescreen setting on the Xbox, and see most games use it
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leon Retro View PostIt was nice when developers started to take advantage of 16:9. Ferrari F355 on the Dreamcast offered a widescreen option before most people had widescreens, so it was nice to have that option when I upgraded to a 32" widescreen in 2001.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Asura View PostIt was actually really nice to turn on the widescreen setting on the Xbox, and see most games use it (PS2 games didn't until quite late in the machine's life). I think the Xbox version of Soul Calibur 2 was the best for this reason; set to widescreen it backed up the camera slightly to give a wider view.
The thing with a lot of early wide games is proper wide-screen vs a lot of faked zoom wide settings.
GT3 has real wide-screen. Jak and Daxter has a zoom wide mode. Cheating.
Comment
-
Originally posted by nakamura View Post
The thing with a lot of early wide games is proper wide-screen vs a lot of faked zoom wide settings.
GT3 has real wide-screen. Jak and Daxter has a zoom wide mode. Cheating.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leon Retro View PostI think the graphics don't look as sharp when the widescreen mode is faked. I seem to remember that true 16:9 games looked really nice. You could tell when it wasn't true 16:9, as it was similar to 4:3 being stretched, in the way the graphics didn't have that nice sharp look you expect with genuine 16:9.
If you render the extra bits to go on the sides for Widescreen, you're effectively rendering a larger resolution (not sure what proportion higher it is, but maybe 25%?).
If you crop & magnify, you're rendering less so performance is actually higher.
Comment
-
Not really sure performance is the issue. After all games like Gran Turismo 3/4 and Final Fantasy XII had true 16/9 and they were not exactly games that skimped on visuals etc.
I'd say it's more the fact it was the birth of wide-screen in general. Was it worth using extra effort or resources for something that wasn't standard in 2001. Even games like Resident Evil 4 wasn't true wide-screen on the GameCube.
Only a wiki but if you look here plenty of Xbox games didn't have 16/9.
There were games that were 50hz only too despite the console having a 60hz mode.Last edited by nakamura; 18-12-2015, 23:09.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Asura View Post
If you crop & magnify, you're rendering less so performance is actually higher.
Originally posted by nakamura View Post
I'd say it's more the fact it was the birth of wide-screen in general. Was it worth using extra effort or resources for something that wasn't standard in 2001. Even games like Resident Evil 4 wasn't true wide-screen on the GameCube.
.
Even Halo on the Xbox isn't widescreen. I'm now embarassed to admit that I thought it was 16:9 back in the day and played it in widescreen. A game like that being 4:3 shows how widescreen wasn't seen as a 'must-have' feature by a lot of devs.
I actually play most PS2, GameCube and Xbox games in 4:3, simply because the low resolution looks better in that aspect. Games from that gen tend to look soft/blurry in widescreen. Of course, when a game was developed especially for 16:9, it can look nice and sharp. Sadly, not many games from that gen look really sharp.
Comment
-
Originally posted by samanosuke View PostHalo must be, surely, as when you play it two-player it splits the screen vertically. In 4:3 mode it splits it horizontally.
Originally posted by Leon Retro View PostI have no idea if 16:9 puts more stress on the hardware. I will guess, like you have, that it probably does add a bit of stress. Then again, I wouldn't be suprised if it doesn't really burden the hardware significantly. If it does, I would think it's negligible.
Comment
-
Originally posted by samanosuke View PostHalo must be, surely, as when you play it two-player it splits the screen vertically. In 4:3 mode it splits it horizontally.
Originally posted by Asura View PostYou've misunderstood - I'm saying you either crop and magnify (rendering an overall lower resolution) or simply render the extra 20% of the screen. The first is always going to have better performance.
Like DVDs with a cropped 16:9 image, games with a fake 16:9 image don't look as sharp. It was always nice when you got a true 16:9 image, as it looked far sharper than cropped and stretched.
Comment
-
From a developer's perspective you can see why, on consoles like the PS2 where performance was always at a premium.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leon Retro View PostI haven't played it for a long time, but I remember it looked really nice and sharp. You get a nice clarity with proper 16:9 games.
Comment
Comment