Recommended Posts

I remember a couple of years ago seeing a World of Warcraft screenshot comparing the different resolutions, and noticing that there was indeed more content in higher resolutions vs fewer. I mean, the screen was displaying more content. (720p vs 1440p)

 

Then, I have tried doing this with other games, like Assassin's Creed , (1920*1080p vs 1400*900) the screen's content is the same. 

 

So, is this true for all games, or just for some like World of Warcraft... Furthemore, am I smoking or the thing that I saw was an illusion (can't remember well how did I find it)

It wouldn't make any sense, would it?

"Guys, let's create a game with content, but only if you've paid <X> amount do you..."

Wait...

Honestly, I don't know. But sarcasm aside, I stand by my first sentence.

EDIT: For context and to avoid a fight over semantics, <X> would be the price of a higher resolution screen. But that ruins the joke. ;)

I believe he means how much you see onscreen. It depends on the game honestly. As long as the aspect ratio between two resolutions is the same, as well as the field of view, then they should display the same thing.

 

If you increase FoV, you will see more as everything is "zoomed out" a bit.

 

Some games have a forced aspect ratio, so if it is forced 16:10 and you run a 16:9 monitor, the game will actually show more width-wise on your monitor than it would on a 16:10 (because it has to shrink the vertical size to fit 16:9, but can fit more along the horizontal size then).

<Picture 2>

Using that example, are there games where someone with a screen resolution of 1920x1080 will see more in their field of vision within the game - using an FPS like FarCry 3, for example - than someone looking at the same view but with a screen of 1680x1050? Or will it be the same view range regardless of game and screen size?

Using that example, are there games where someone with a screen resolution of 1920x1080 will see more in their field of vision within the game - using an FPS like FarCry 3, for example - than someone looking at the same view but with a screen of 1680x1050? Or will it be the same view range regardless of game and screen size?

The bigger the screen with small resolution, this happens:

 

pixel.jpg

compare.jpg

 

 

 

 

I believe this image below answers your question better.4k_comparison.jpg

 

This is true, unless the game engine/graphic card does some sort of scaling, which the majority do.

  • Like 3

As far as gaming goes, how much of the world you see in a game depends on the FOV (field of view).

 

Different aspect ratios (4:3 vs 16:9) will display slightly different amounts of "content".

Wide screen monitors usually allow you to see more to the left and right.

 

If the monitors are the same aspect ratio, increasing the resolution in a game will not allow more "content" to be seen. It will simply be clearer and more detailed.

 

Here is an example of different FOVs in Halo CE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se95M2ySzDI#t=19

 

Outside of games. Higher resolution means smaller text, and smaller icons. Meaning you can fit more on the screen, but smaller is harder to read.

Windows automatically bumps up the DPI (dots per inch) on certain large resolution monitors which makes text and icons larger, for example 125% their original size

 

For maximum working space the best thing is a large monitor with a large resolution.

Usually no, it would just mean it's easier for you to see the details, but FOV is generally the same. Depends on the game though.

Definitely though, if the UI doesn't scale with the resolution, it gets alot smaller at high resolutions, meaning you can see more of the game behind the interface or in a MMORPG etc. you can have alot more hotbars etc. on the screen at once without it getting full up. 

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Wonder what MPs have ties to these privacy/verification/data harvesting companies that are going to step in this time. Last time under the Tories half the cabinet had fingers in the pies, heck even the PM and his wife at the time was working for silicon valley, probably made a fortune.
    • Google Chrome is killing all uBlock Origin bypasses, Microsoft Edge, Opera to follow by Sayan Sen For a while now the transition away from Manifest V2 (MV2) to MV3 has been on-going and it looks like it is entering its final phase of deprecation, at least, in the case of Google Chrome. A recent discussion thread in the w3c WebExtensions Community Group GitHub repo has highlighted how the latest and upcoming versions of the most popular browser are expected to be its final releases with support for MV2 extensions. Chromium contributor Andrey Bershanskiy shared details about recent Chromium changes and according to comments from Google engineer Devlin Cronin, Chrome has now started removing the flags that previously controlled MV2 availability. kExtensionManifestV2Disabled, the Chromium feature flag that allowed controlled disabling of MV2 add-ons, is now completely removed, which means you will likely no longer find uBlock Origin in your browser extensions list. He wrote: "The kExtensionManifestV2Disabled feature has been default-enabled for over a year. Remove the feature and the effectively-dead code. ... Any tests that relied on being in the "warning" phase (i.e., with the kExtensionManifestV2Disabled) for their sole behavior testing are removed, since this stage is no longer reachable." Cronin further explained why MV2 extensions are no longer allowed in supported Chrome versions as maintaining the associated functionality indefinitely is no longer possible. He cited growing technical difficulties and implementation complexities as well as security concerns. He wrote: "MV2 extensions are no longer allowed in any supported version of Chrome, and we are removing support for them and the associated functionality. We won't be able to provide / maintain this functionality indefinitely due to the complexity and tech debt, as well as the security risks it entails (we've actually found a number of bugs that are specific to MV2 lately). Of course, other browsers can continue supporting these if they so desire. Unfortunately, we won't be putting code behind a compilation flag ... We won't be removing all the MV2 code wholesale right away, so many of these things will continue working for awhile (but they will go away eventually, and some may go away sooner than others)." What this essentially means is that the tricks and bypasses that were used to keep MV2 extensions like uBlock Origin and others alive will not work any more on Chrome, or at least not for very long. For example the Windows Registry mod that could extend MV2 availability will cease to function after Chromium version 151. Here is a rundown of the changes coming in the final such releases of Chromium releases: Chromium 150 lost ExtensionManifestV2Disabled option Chromium 151 will loose ExtensionManifestV2Unsupported option Chromium 151 will loose ExtensionManifestV2Availability option Chromium 151 will likely loose AllowLegacyMV2Extensions option Other Chromium-based browsers like Opera and Microsoft Edge could soon follow suit too. Although it is not specified, Edge began disabling uBlock Origin back in February, and Opera could also stop the functioning of MV2 add-ons, even though it had committed to support MV2 for longer in October 2024. uBlock Origin developer Raymond Hill (gorhill) apparently stated the following: "For Opera I did submit 1.70.0 rather late, but this was weeks ago. A while ago I received an email from Opera that they plan to abandon MV2-based extension so maybe they are no longer allocating resources for reviewing such extensions." The email which developers like Gorhill mentions was received from Opera last year. Here is what it seemingly said: Hence for now the only Chromium browser that seems to be on-board fully with MV2 support is Brave, and perhaps Vivaldi as well. Meanwhile if you want to ditch Chromium browsers entirely then Mozilla Firefox is an excellent alternative as MV3 and MV2 are both supported. Of course the easiest solution is to switch to uBlock Origin Lite if you want to remain on Chrome, as it is MV3-based, but from our experience, uBO Lite does not seem to be as good as the original non-Lite version. Source: w3C (GitHub repo) As an online publication, Neowin too relies on ads for operating costs and, if you use an ad blocker, we'd appreciate being whitelisted. In addition, we have an ad-free subscription for $28 a year, which is another way to show support!
    • Write to your MP 😄 Like believing in Santa. Total surveillance IS the goal. Wake up.
    • This whole dumb age verification thing needs to die and be replaced by giving parents tools to control devices. Why am I required to plaster my ID all over the internet to prove I'm old enough when parents should be the ones dictating what their kids are doing on their phones. Apple released great set of tools for iPhones coming to iOS 27 that do just that. Why are governments not mandating that kind of control to phone makers to built them into phones. This whole thing is so absolutely idiotic it's wild.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Very Popular
      Captain_Eric earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • One Month Later
      amusc earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      511
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      220
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      92
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      90
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      83
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!