Well of Souls Forums

fredgiblet wrote:I just wish they still made affordable 4:3 monitors. I play a lot of games that benefit as much from vertical space as horizontal and surfing the net is better with vertical as well. 16:10 is the best we can get these days.

Ew, 16:10.

Everyone knows 16:9 monitors are best monitors... until those 2.40:1 ones I keep hearing about become commonplace.

"Everyone knows"? Unless you're watching movies or playing FPSes with no vertical component square is better. 16:10 is better for non-FPS games, FPS games with vertical components and using the internet. For the majority of uses 4:3>16:10>16:9.

The reason 16:9 is so popular is because of marketing terms like 1080p and "HD" and because the shared format with TVs makes them slightly cheaper to manufacture.

fredgiblet wrote:square is better

I preferred the 4:3 ratio, but the 16:9 monitors are so huge and so cheap that it's hard to complain.

Yeah. I'm willing to pay the premium to get a 16:10, but the picking are too slim on 4:3, also I DO watch movies sometimes.

My new baby:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/prod ... u=320-2676

Got it with my tax return.

fredgiblet wrote:square is better

I much prefer Hexagonal

If its a game with a vertical component I would hope it supports TrackIR. Not that I have the money to spare for one, but playing DCS sims I've recognized just how limited the view space on a monitor really is. Made me start looking at other games going, "oh hey ya it'd be nice to look around right about now".

I remember back in the late 90s or early 00s seeing a guy in a magazine who had something like 5 computers pushing 12 monitors running one copy of a flight sim. He had 180 degrees around, one monitor center below and 2 center above. Ridiculous.

That makes me remember trying out some kind of gaming chair at the games convention in Leipzig years ago: 3 large monitors were attached to that thing in front of you and the staff would let you play some kind of flight sim with it. The chair would then move like you would steer the plane in the simulation and a series of fans would blow air at you according to the speed you had in game. Was a lot of fun to use, the price tag attached to it however was not.

I agree I got a free 16-9 flat for my gaming and I wouldn't go back.

I have been using a 16:10(1920x1200) 24inch for about 4 years now I like it more than the 16:9 you can get now it fits my desk perfectly (any wider and it wouldn't fit any taller and the bottoms to low)

My main concern with an oddball resolution like 1920x1200 would be that some programs or drivers might not support it.

Nah. 16:10 has been in use for the same time as 16:9, if not longer. 16:10 was (and I believe still is) used by movie studios because it let's you put toolbars on the screen while working on a 16:9 video. 1920x1200 is fully supported by pretty much everything that supports widescreen monitors.

If you have a ton of money to burn the GalCiv III beta is on Steam.

fredgiblet wrote:If you have a ton of money to burn the GalCiv III beta is on Steam.

Hm. They charge you $100 for the privilege of alpha testing their product.

Words fail me.

On another note, Age of Wonders III is due out March 31. What I've seen of it is looking really good.

It's becoming a very common thing on Steam. There's a TON of early access games. I haven't been tempted yet though, I have enough games waiting in my backlog without needing to add alphas and betas. There's a couple I've put on my wishlist though.

It's kind of a double-edged sword really, on the one hand if you're running low on cash doing an early access will get you some more plus some valuable beta testing, on the other hand you KNOW that there's going to be a ton of people whining about flaws in the game even though it's a friggin' beta and it says so on the tin.

They have a right to whine... they paid $100. It's basically begging for bad press.

But then... that's Stardock. The company with the CEO that gets into flame wars with customers on the forums.

fredgiblet wrote:It's becoming a very common thing on Steam. There's a TON of early access games. I haven't been tempted yet though, I have enough games waiting in my backlog without needing to add alphas and betas. There's a couple I've put on my wishlist though.

It's kind of a double-edged sword really, on the one hand if you're running low on cash doing an early access will get you some more plus some valuable beta testing, on the other hand you KNOW that there's going to be a ton of people whining about flaws in the game even though it's a friggin' beta and it says so on the tin.

agree Planetary Annihilation is still at the 0.6 build now. neat to see a game being build with every version.

Arioch wrote:They have a right to whine... they paid $100.

Knowing full well it's a beta, or even an alpha. When you purchase an unfinished product knowing it's an unfinished product you don't have the right to complain that it's unfinished.

It's basically begging for bad press.

Agreed.

Arioch wrote: Hm. They charge you $100 for the privilege of alpha testing their product.

that kind of stupid to charge for more than the full price :S Usually they charge a small amount, like an early bird discount.

But before that they actually paid people to test those