What is your thoughts on Widescreen being the standard?

[Dyne]

widescreen is objectively better, I think, as long as the content was made for it.
HOWEVER, I absolutely hate when 4:3 stuff is stretched. Black bars on the sides do not bother me. At all. Stretched images bother me IMMENSELY.

 

[dropsmegamega]

4:3 is kinda cooler and more compact. Widescreen is always like " heyy look how much empty space I have! " I am so tired of that guy and his cinematic pretentions really miss 4:3 a legit og

 

[rinkachi]

4:3 first person games sometimes give me motion sickness if the FOV is too low (i'm talking about you - borderlands 2 on the PS3 ) but so long as the game or media can fit all it needs to in the given aspect ratio then it doesn't matter - it's similar to graphics (realistic vs art style vs looking crap on purpose) it isn't about what you use, it's about how you use it.

 

[username_]

widescreen is objectively better, I think, as long as the content was made for it.
HOWEVER, I absolutely hate when 4:3 stuff is stretched. Black bars on the sides do not bother me. At all. Stretched images bother me IMMENSELY.

Do you know what's even worse than stretched visuals?: Cropped visuals.

Fortunately cropping is uncommon, especially in games. Super Mario Bros. Deluxe the only example most people would be familiar with, and to be honest there's no better case study. It adds a ton of improvements and features only for it all to be undermined by compromised gameplay.

It's not like it becomes unplayable, but the reduced field of view leaves less time to react. You sometimes have to finess the camera to see where you're going. Visual approximations of the original sprites would have been better because it would have avoided these issues (Super Mario Bros Mini proves it).

Cropping any other medium should be a capital offence. With games it's generally a result of hardware limitations. I can only assume television is cropped because the suits that own the IP insist on "A consistent visual experience, compatable with modern sesibilites" (or some similar BS). It's a decision made from ignorance for how cropping impacts the original, and it drives me up a wall.

 

[Dyne]

Do you know what's even worse than stretched visuals?: Cropped visuals.

Fortunately cropping is uncommon, especially in games. Super Mario Bros. Deluxe the only example most people would be familiar with, and to be honest there's no better case study. It adds a ton of improvements and features only for it all to be undermined by compromised gameplay.

It's not like it becomes unplayable, but the reduced field of view leaves less time to react. You sometimes have to finess the camera to see where you're going. Visual approximations of the original sprites would have been better because it would have avoided these issues (Super Mario Bros Mini proves it).

Cropping any other medium should be a capital offence. With games it's generally a result of hardware limitations. I can only assume television is cropped because the suits that own the IP insist on "A consistent visual experience, compatable with modern sesibilites" (or some similar BS). It's a decision made from ignorance for how cropping impacts the original, and it drives me up a wall.

Yeah, cropping is awful too.
Like I said, widescreen is better "as long as the content was made for it".
Things should be left in the aspect ratio they were made for.

Reminds me of this video of how they cropped the animated batman movie

 

[Sumea]

I saw a video where first research papers were proposing widescreen (16:9) for wide adoption, with also 5.1 sound. This goes back into late 80's or early 90's. There was a lot of science and testing done to end up with 16:9 being generally the best screen aspect. It uses more peripheral vision than 4:3 while not going overboard. While I can understand the nostalgia and great 4:3 screens, it's standardization was born from necessary compromise with the cathode ray technology and manufacturing limitations with first tubes. Widescreen CRT's come after decades of advancements in the tech after all, with their own issues. Ultrawide isn't good for TV's. They have to be curved for best experience and there's a sweet spot with UW monitors. A curved TV (ultrawide or not) would suck for a group or a family. This leaves UW as a niche enthusiast monitor choice for PC users where monitor placement and sweet spot are easy to manage, lone use is the norm and there is also some productivity benefit with 2-3 normal monitors in one. I'd imagine car simulators and FPS games rock with UW, not ever owning one myself. But what benefit do 3rd person action games, retro games, fighting games, side scrollers and such get with UW? No video content benefits either aside forcing 1.8:1 or 2.4:1 movies to fill your UW screen. Phones have wilder aspect ratios now, but the vertical & horizontal dual usage of phones and other considerations make the logic more malleable. Portable devices in general escape logic devised for large TV's.
Heck I want more weird ways to use vertical screens. Shmups for 16:9 screens oriented vertically. Funky stuff they did and still do with multiple screen arcade games like Dariusburst, Xmen deluxe 6p cabinet, ninja warriors etc. Can't be THAT wild with these standards but I wish more phone games were vertical and playful with it. TATE me out bro.

TL;DR:
4:3 was born mostly from technological necessity, a compromise, likely.
16:9 had a lot of thought put into it, a long time ago, tested and calculated out as best big screen aspect ratio for human eyes. We have not replaced it in several decades for a reason.
Ultrawide has limited universality and other tradeoffs, thus limited to a niche PC monitor choice for enthusiasts.
"Lol" said the phones. "Lmao"