Non 480p Games List

Things are definately getting better now that all the rushed launch trash is out the way, the only thing I had to add was no widescreen in kororinpa.

There are a few reviews that don't mention anything so there's still a chance a few are not on the lists that should be.

I don't understand why widescreen isn't standard. I don't understand why you can still buy 4:3 televisions. Why do companies still manufacture them?

Forgetting prog-scan and definition for a moment, most gamers arguably have an interest in their AV gear, and if they don't yet have a widescreen telly (like me), they're next TV will be 16:9. The new Wii-cruited mature gamers probably already have a 16:9 set up (with Dolby Surround to get the best out of their Brothers In Arms DVD). It doesn't make sense - we should be compiling special select lists detailing the games that support 4:3!

Even my grandparents have a widescreen tv. Granted, they watch horribly distorted 4:3 broadcasts, have the saturation on max and the sound turned up to make your ears bleed - but when it came to replace their old Trinitron they went widescreen.

Someone explain the thinking behind keeping 4:3 alive.

The retards who made trauma centre said it was because it didn't suit the game. So why can't they just put some curtains either side?

artmonkey said:
I dont understand why widescreen isnt standard. I dont understand why you can still buy 4:3 televisions. Why do companies still manufacture them?Forgetting prog-scan and definition for a moment, most gamers arguably have an interest in their AV gear, and if they dont yet have a widescreen telly (like me), theyre next TV will be 16:9. The new Wii-cruited mature gamers probably already have a 16:9 set up (with Dolby Surround to get the best out of their Brothers In Arms DVD). It doesnt make sense - we should be compiling special select lists detailing the games that support 4:3!Even my grandparents have a widescreen tv. Granted, they watch horribly distorted 4:3 broadcasts, have the saturation on max and the sound turned up to make your ears bleed - but when it came to replace their old Trinitron they went widescreen.Someone explain the thinking behind keeping 4:3 alive.

Agree with all of that. Star for you!

I still actually have a 4:3 telly as my bedroom/gaming/main telly. I would have updated to widescreen long before now, but HD televisions have complicated matters for me. My current TV is good enough for me to wait for the right HD set. But when I do by my next telly, I wouldn't even dream of not getting a widescreen one.

Someone explain the thinking behind keeping 4:3 alive.

Personally? I don't like widescreen, I much prefer 4:3, I don't like that it is being phased out by widescreen.

I don't see why people like widescreen at all, 4:3 is so much nicer to look at, if I were to buy a new TV I would much prefer it to be 4:3 but that just isn't possible anymore.

Does someone want to explain to me what I'm missing? What is the appeal of widescreen, other than it being the only choice for bigger TV's?

It's part of the reason why I haven't upgraded my old 19" CRT, to buy a new WS 19" monitor would mean actually losing screen space, why would I want to do that?

This has always baffled me.

Well, the thing is, the widescreen aspect ratio is actually the original one. Films in cinemas have always been filmed, and shown in this aspect ratio. Later on, when home television was invented, what was being broadcast was in a very different format, and thus, TVs were markedly different.

Then over the years, movie directors were complaining that when their films were re-edited for 4:3, it ruined the cinematography and the framing, which is fair enough. Every shot in a good film is meticulously done. It looks exactly how it was wanted to look. To then come along and chop the screen off at both ends pissed them off, and resulted in an altered film.

All in all, if you're any kind of film fanatic, you will see the huge benefits of widescreen. You can watch films at full-screen, in the right aspect ratio, and see allt he shots and scenes the way the were supposed to be seen.

As for everything else, in 4:3 you actually have less screen, so I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

I'm still confused.

If I have a widescreen monitor, then films will look as they should, fine,

But what's the difference between that and just setting the view on a 4:3 monitor to widescreen, you're still seeing just as much of the picture surely (minus a couple of inches)?

Yes, they'll be big black borders, but the only reason you don't get that on a widescreen is because there is no screen to fill, so what's the difference?

How do you have less screen in 4:3, I'm confused? There is more physical screen, so surely more stuff can be displayed on the screen?

You don't understand, mate. When you watch a film in widescreen on a 4:3 telly, the image is shrunken to fit onto the screen, hence the borders. Those black borders are not indicative of anything missing on a widescreen display. A widescreen telly simply offers extra screen at either end. All modern widescreens offer a '4:3 mode', where the extra pixels are not used, and rather than see a stretched 4:3 image, you see a normal one, with black borders down the sides.

Widescreen TVs offer more picture, not less.

( Edited on 14.04.2007 18:29 by Oni )

You don't understand, mate. When you watch a film in widescreen on a 4:3 telly, the image is shrunken to fit onto the screen, hence the borders. Those black borders are not indicative of anything missing on a widescreen display.

Yes, but that's exactly the same with widescreen TV's, its just you lose the height and not the width. I just think the height is more important for a lot of things, especially considering you can still watch the entirety of widescreen anyway, just smaller.

A widescreen telly simply offers extra screen at either end. All modern widescreens offer a '4:3 mode', where the extra pixels are not used, and rather than see a stretched 4:3 image, you see a normal one, with black borders down the sides.

It's the same with 4:3, just the other way around surely? It offers extra pixels for height, and can be set to a

According to Marzy, the PAL version of Tiger Woods does not have prog scan, wide-screen or PAL60. The NTSC version does have prog scan and wide-screen however. It's not the first 50hz ornly game, but it's the first time I've heard of a PAL version loosing 480p and widescreen. If anyone has any other EA games in particular, please let me know what they support.

The widescreen mode on alot of VC games usually just make every thing bigger and slightly more pixelated.

Nah Spydar, a widescreen telly looses no pixels whatsoever, it just gains some horizontal pixels. So you're getting the same vertical resolution, just more at either end. That's basically it

( Edited on 15.04.2007 11:49 by Oni )

I think what he means is, that you loose physical height (not pixels) when you get widescreen over 4:3.

i.e. a "19 16:9 is roughly the same height as a "17 4:3 because it's measured diagonally across.

You confused me a bit back there Spyderlee, but I think I understand you now.

Widescreen is favoured by filmmakers as it allows greater scope for composition, blah, blah, blah. Artistically it's arguably more dynamic, interesting and sexy. Not arguably - it just is.

Watching a widescreen film on a 4:3 TV (on a widescreen setting) will give you black borders top and bottom. In real-estate terms, you get more screen space (though it's black) than you do if you watch a film on a widescreen TV that displays an identical sized widescreen film. Because TV screens are measured diagonally, a 19" widescreen will always have less actual screen area than a 19" 4:3.

The answer is thus - buy a bigger widescreen telly.

So essentially, companies cannily use this to charge more for a screen that has less actual surface-area than the 'equivilent' sized 4:3. Less surface-area=less materials=more profit. So this leads me back to my original point - why are they still bothering with 4:3 tellies??!! Surely they're just missing out on a chance to screw the consumer?

Anamorphic widescreen is when... *brain dies*

So essentially, companies cannily use this to charge more for a screen that has less actual surface-area than the 'equivilent' sized 4:3. Less surface-area=less materials=more profit. So this leads me back to my original point - why are they still bothering with 4:3 tellies??!! Surely they're just missing out on a chance to screw the consumer?

You've got it wrong! A 17" 4:3 still by definition has less surface area than a 19" 16:9.

Just to complicate things more, wide PC monitors and cheaper monitor-based HDTVs are 16:10 to accommodate an interface at the top or bottom.

Grumbler said:
Youve got it wrong! A 17" 4:3 still by definition has less surface area than a 19" 16:9.

You're melting my 2 1/2 years since C in GCSE maths brain. I would have thought a rectangle that measures 19" across would have the same area however the dimensions are distributed.

Nope, that is a common misconception. Change the ratios of the sides and you get a different hypotenuse and area.

im confused about this whole thing as i thought 4:3 and 16:9 were equivalent ratio in mathematical sense, so why are they different for tvs.

All this jargon takes me back. Whatever you say!

Grumbler said:
Youre melting my 2 1/2 years since C in GCSE maths brain. I would have thought a rectangle that measures 19" across would have the same area however the dimensions are distributed.

So say for example you have two LCD televisions both 13.3" inches diagonally, one has a 4:3 aspect ratio while another has a 16:9 ratio. The 4:3 screen will be approximately 10.6" wide and 8" high. The 16:9 screen will be 11.6" wide but only 6.5" high (I took these heights and widths from another site so I have to hope they're right). For the 4:3 screen if you multiply 10.6 by 8 you get 84.8 inches

Don't you just love Rllmuk?

Grumbler said:
According to Marzy, the PAL version of Tiger Woods does not have prog scan, wide-screen or PAL60. The NTSC version does have prog scan and wide-screen however. Its not the first 50hz ornly game, but its the first time Ive heard of a PAL version loosing 480p and widescreen. If anyone has any other EA games in particular, please let me know what they support.

I've got both SSX Blur and Godfather and they both support 480p and widescreen. Don't see why they'd remove it for Tiger Woods, seems weird.

Grumbler said:
Dont you just love Rllmuk?

Yeah but you didn't give 2 paragraphs of incomprehensible formulas with all the computer symbols left in.

You get stars though.

( Edited on 15.04.2007 16:12 by Grumbler )