Hello all, Just a question

[dustin23]

This is my first post but I have read and used your advice for a while. I usually use the workaround with games where you go and edit the options file to get 1680x1050. My question is this, if all it takes is a simple edit to the options file to get my screen res working, why didn't the game maker just add that res as a settings option in the first place? Thanks in advance.

[ctrlsteef]

Because a lot of game developers are stupid and lazy. :wink:

Anyway, it doesn't necessarilly mean you get true widescreen with the hack you describe.
Often you just get the right resolution but you still end up with a stretched or cut down FOV.

[The_cranky_hermit]

My question is this, if all it takes is a simple edit to the options file to get my screen res working, why didn't the game maker just add that res as a settings option in the first place?

Usually, it's because the programmers weren't actively thinking "let's make this compatible with widescreen," but they programmed it in a way that just happens to be widescreen compatible. And when the menus were designed, they hard-coded a list of resolutions into the game consisting of the usual 4:3 ones, without regard for widescreen resolutions, custom resolutions, or future resolutions.

Ironically, some of the widescreen certified games are probably designed this way (except for the hard-coded menus part). Total Annihilation almost certainly was designed completely blind to aspect ratios. Windows is designed this way too. Games that are designed to have a widescreen mode and a non-widescreen mode usually have oversights here and there. A common one is widescreen being hard-coded to 16:9, resulting in 16:10 resolutions being stretched vertically.

[dustin23]

Thanks for the replies. I think I understand. What you're saying is that even though a game was designed say for 1024x768, it will still do 1680x1050 but the menus might not be correct with the res change.

[The_cranky_hermit]

the menus might not be correct with the res change.

That part's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the developers make 1024x768 an option in the menus, but not 1680x1050. The reason is because they weren't thinking of widescreen when they made the game - 1680x1050 just works by accident.

[dustin23]

So when a game is made at 1024x768 but works at 1680x1050, is that extra resolution being interpolated by the graphics card or do the designers make the textures and polygons in a higher res then dumb it down? I'm just trying to figure out what part of the computer or programing works to bring something higher than it's designed resolution.

[The_cranky_hermit]

Neither one is correct, but the second option is less incorrect. If a game supports 1680x1050, the game is definitely being rendered at that resolution. It's not like XBox 360 where 1080p just means the game is rendered at 720p and interpolated up to 1080p.

[The_cranky_hermit]

Let's look at an extreme example.

Here is the original Quake from 1996, running at its intended resolution of 320x200.


Here is that image upscaled to 1920x1200.


Here is Quake actually running at 1920x1200.


When Quake is running at 1920x1200, it's using the same textures and artwork as it does at 320x200. The artwork is not higher-res, it's just rendered at a higher resolution. Nevertheless, it looks one hell of a lot sharper just because it's being rendered at a higher resolution. Edges look a lot smoother, and textures in the distance do not lose their detail.

[dustin23]

So it's magic, just as I suspected. Lol I think I understand. I was thinking it is more complicated than it is. Thanks for your help. One thing I still don't understand. After the designers put endless hours and tons of hard work into the programming, why wouldn't they take the extra two seconds to add that one simple line "1680x1050" to the options?