Widescreen Gaming Forum

Our current grading system allows a game that runs in 16:9 anamorphic to receive a high score, even Certification. But, a game that runs in 16:10 anamorphic (and pillarboxing on a 16:9 monitor) is penalized, with it's highest possible score a C.

Assassin's Creed was Certified with 16:9 anamorphic, but the new Penny Arcade Adventures only received a C with 16:10 anamorphic. There is an ongoing discussion to adjust the grading scale to treat 16:10 anamorphic in the same manner we treat 16:9 anamorphic.

Your thoughts and comments are appreciated.

There is an ongoing discussion to adjust the grading scale to treat 16:10 anamorphic in the same manner we treat 16:9 anamorphic.

Treating them in the same manner would go completely against the underlying theory beneath the whole grading scheme that wider is better. When grading games whose screen change is AR-based, we expect 16:10 to have benefits over 4:3 on the grounds that it is wider. The way I see it, there are only three ways to keep the certification requirements consistent with the theory behind them.

1, we apply theory equally to 16:9, and when grading games whose screen change is AR-based, we expect 16:9 to have benefits over 16:10 on the grounds that it is wider.

2, we remove 16:9 from our considerations, just like we do with TH, and focus entirely on 16:10 support.

3, we change our underlying theory.

1 is how it's worked so far, and I think it makes plenty of sense. 2 is something I couldn't really support - 16:9 users seem widespread enough to merit their consideration, plus this would basically render all of our existing DR's obsolete.

As for 3, consider it a non-option. It would require redesigning the certification system around this new theory, and making a new grading rubric and DR template, and retroactively applying it all to every single game that we ever covered. I'm not going to do that, and I highly doubt anyone else will either.

I say penalize 16:10 anamorphic, but it should be considered a minor flaw, not a major one. So a B.

That way we're not treating 16:9 anamorphic and 16:10 the same, so that that should make Cranky happy, but we're also not condemning the game for what is, at least in my opinion, something which is not very detrimental to 16:9.

Perhaps other 16:9 users may feel differently, but the amount of unused screenspace is minimal enough that I don't find it distracting at all. I would take 16:10 pillarboxed over 16:10 stretched or 16:10 vert-, both of which would be C grades as far as I understand it, so I think we need to distinguish it as being higher.

I say penalize 16:10 anamorphic, but it should be considered a minor flaw, not a major one. So a B.

That way we're not treating 16:9 anamorphic and 16:10 the same, so that that should make Cranky happy, but we're also not condemning the game for what is, at least in my opinion, something which is not very detrimental to 16:9.

Perhaps other 16:9 users may feel differently, but the amount of unused screenspace is minimal enough that I don't find it distracting at all. I would take 16:10 pillarboxed over 16:10 stretched or 16:10 vert-, both of which would be C grades as far as I understand it, so I think we need to distinguish it as being higher.

Makes sense to me.