Blizzard might as well ban players with mid-high end GPUs, high framerate monitors and mechanical keyboards since they also give competitive advantage over the average PC build.
Hell, you can see people better in most games at very low resolutions without anti aliasing than you can at high resolutions and/or with AA because their jaggies stick out from the environment so you don't have the problem in modern games where everything blends together, likewise cranking up your gamma makes it easy to see people too. It's a trade off between immersion and your competitive advantage. Ultrawide gamers are very clearly people who enjoy immersion or at the very least, enjoy cinematic things, and those are generally people who appreciate art or in other words are probably playing games for the experience. Casual doesn't quite fit. I'm a pretty hardcore gamer and I am quite good at FPS games but I really don't care about playing games competitively these days, often balance is so broken by constant DLC releases that taking most of them seriously is just shooting yourself in the foot. I'd say it's the opposite of casual, it's somebody who is very serious about experiencing the world in the game, or the film to its fullest. I think what did it for me, was when I started playing Chivalry: Medieval Warfare and began to slowly crank up my FOV until I stopped around 110 or 115 and I realized how much less disorienting it was to perform complex maneuvers or fight off multiple people and generally not get stuck on foot high objects when I had a greater sense of my body in space, i.e. I could use my peripheral vision to determine where my shoulders were and therefore where my center of gravity was and so movement began to feel quite natural. However, the camera began to fish eye and things became very narrow. I started to think a lot about FOV and the shape of the human eye and just how much of our peripheral vision is available to us and how we use that. One thing was clear, the human eye can see a shit ton to the left and right and to ever make anything "first person" feel natural, the perspective is going to need to more closely match the aspect ratio of the human eye. Plus, who wants to watch Lord of the Rings with black bars?
how so? I find it ok, the screen is cut from the top the slight but the fov is far higher to the sides, making it feel more real to me as the peripherals feel perfect. Aren't the character models larger too? making it easier to hit them. Correct me if im wrong and if the slight stretch , if any, makes it harder to engage close range
Zain Shaikh theres no added fov when you play 21:9 in overwatch. do you know what they did? zoomed in the camera so it fills the entire screen, cutting out 30% of the horizontal fov.
I think the reason why a bunch of pro players don't use ultrawide is because most of the best players have been playing shooters for many years and they have been used to 4:3. When they're already among the best in the world at what they do while in 4:3, what incentive do they have to deal with the learning curve to switching to a different aspect ratio? I'm sure many of them at least tried it, felt like it was nice visually but it just wasn't the same (obviously because they weren't used to it yet), and went back to 4:3. In fact I'm sure what I just mentioned most likely applies way more to 16:9 because almost everyone at least has a 16:9 monitor these days. But ultrawide is basically still new to the market, and to many it just feels like a gimmick so most people don't even try it.
4:3 aspect ratio does not mean you're playing with black bars. A lot of players play with stretched image so it can still be 16:9 or even 21:9... but it's simply stretched.
Funny thing about ultrawide is you can get that 120 16:9 fov at a little under 110 on 21:9 and without extreme fish eye. It's just a better visual experience, comparable to active sync in that it just makes the image better. Sure you can do 120 fov on a 21:9 monitor but it kinda defeats the purpose.
There's a fundamental issue in tournament LAN settings. There is no guarantee that the tournament venue allows for UWM monitors to be used AND have hardware capability to run it smoothly during the event, alongside prep time between games. Generally speaking you want to compete on the same gear you practice on to achieve consistent results. Even if UWM has an advantage, its mitigated by not being able to utilize it consistently at tournaments. That and TTK is so short for competitive FPS that cursor placement is more important than peripheral vision. Even if you can see more with peripheral extensions provided by UWM, if your wrist snap isn't fast enough you're just gonna get insta-domed.
I bought a X34 predator, a 3440x1440 100hz capable G-sync compatible beast, my K/D for BF1 has improved from by 50%. However I do agree the aspect ratio is only part of the reason, I was on a 1080p 60hz monitor before, and I feel the combined improvements of aspect ratio, resolution, and improved frame rates have been the reason of my rise in KD. Besides, I think ultrawide monitors are best at non competitive games anyway, strategy games and immersive games like ABZU and racing games benefit greatly from them. Not to mention there great at watching 21:9 compatible movies.
I bought the game because i played the beta and ultrawide was properly supported, then i play the full game and i saw they removed it. I still play the game with black bars though because it's too good to pass.
Great video, dude! Very accurate, there's no need to punish someone who buys one type of peripheral when the others aren't considered as competitive advantages as well!
I think the whole 21:9 "they see more" just funny. The advantage starts with resolution. 720p for example in Arma3, Red Orchestra and lets say Planetside 2 is just too low to see everyone. I noticed the need for 1080p+ when I started playing Euro Truck Sim 2 because the GPS was just too low res and the game in general had bad antialising. Then there is FOV. The FOV can change a match significantly... And now they have a problem with 21:9 ? I would say 240Hz monitors can be equally game-changing compared to 21:9 or low latency monitors.
Same goes with internet connections. Some one in a city may have great ping because they live in a city where the internet infrastructure is very good. While someone in a rural area has really poor ping because there internet is really bad because the infrastructure is poor. (There's of course more factors to a fast and slow internet but bare with me). Say both those people are in a game of Overwatch, should we ban people with high or low pings for a positive / negative competitive advantage?
CS:GO does ban ultrawide, at least for me, by the way. I use a 31:9 monitor and they just stretch the edges, which kind of makes it worse since the stretched area is OUTSIDE my field of view anyway.
you said they do 4:3 because it stretches, but that's clearly wrong because seconds before you show the excel sheet of the players settings and it clearly says 4:3 black bars for most of them
Oh man, I totally forgot they could crop your FOV on UW in some games. For gaming its a hit or miss, but for media consumptions it holds its ground against the competition.
2:58 argument about the rule "if one is ok then, they're ok" is wrong. First, because ultra wide monitors give player advantage of having more information without need to look around too much. As for fps. Similiar - in rts like Starcraft 2, you can see more map, without need to move camera much. Same for Fortnite, etc. So if we would say "ultra wide is ok" then having the same rule we should also say "cheats that remove fog of war are ok" or "cheats that show you enemy behind the wall are ok" why? Because all of them give the player information that he should not see. At least it gives advantage over other players, who need to look around to get those information instead. There is difference between equipment that gives you additional info over a map vs equipment like high dps mouse, or better refresh rates of monitors. The reason why top e-sports players use standard equipment - is they have to train on eq which is allowed on tournaments.
Ultrawide isn’t better for competitive reasons in FPS game but for immersion. The UI will be further away from your centre field of view which allows you to focus on the pretty graphics easier. Ultrawide will benefit racing games in a competitive manner though for sure.
Every aspect can be considered P2W on a PC .. the GPU makes a huge impact and was overlooked. If people are whining then buy a frigging console and STFU.
Nice video, its worth highlighting the biggest advantage/disadvantage of all, low and high latency due to internet connection quality and distance. If Tards like Blizzard wanted to make things "fair" they would impose artificial latency so all players were near the lowest common denominator maybe 200ms.
this happens in apex and cod, as well as other games I'd assume. it's called lag compensation. maybe not as extreme as what you said but certainly it isn't fair.
They need to stop "banning" it by giving you 30% less space or stetching the edges. They should just crop some at the bottom and give you extra on the side at the very least. Also how about actually support it better to where I can fullscreen window it without it having black bars on the sides?
So is it worth getting a 21:9? I play modern warfare. Will that boost my gameplay? Will it give me a competitive advantage or should I just stick to 16:9 but get a higher refresh rate monitor?
I have never met somebody with an ultrawide monitor who games competitively and doesn't use a 16:9 monitor for their competitive gaming, or at the very least acknowledge that they should have one for the games they are trying to be competitive in. It's this weird thing where people who have 16:9 monitors think 21:9 monitors are an advantage and thus envious, yet the people with 21:9 monitors still use 16:9 monitors for gaming competitively.
Ultrawide monitors aren't even an advantage over 16:9, in no real way pay2win like high end gpus/monitors. If I use a 21:9 monitor I, by default, have to process atleast ~30% more pixels. This drops my fps, which is a disadvantage. The few milloseconds of constant disadvantage one faces heavily outweighs the occasional moment where you can see something normally off screen on a 16:9 monitor. It's a best a trade off. Lower skill players might actually see an advantage, as they don't posses the skill for a few milloseconds disadvantage to matter. But at the pro level they obviously care about a constantly few milloseconds advantage with 16:9 or even 4:3 than the occasional and rare benefit an increased fov holds. There's also the inherent disadvantage of distortion. Being wider always distorts the images more on the sides. You can see that going from 4:3 to 16:9, or 16:9 to 21:9 or even 21:9 to 32:9. This makes snap aiming much more difficult, even if you see something you otherwise wouldn't have. The point is not that there isn't anyt advantage or disadvantage, the real point is it god damn fucking insignificant. Especially compared to all the other payable hardware advantages. The most anoyying part about this discussion are the idiots who are against it. If the support exists, nobody cares. But whenever somebody wants that support suddenly the morons come out of the woodwork about how it's a serious advantage.
Good vid 👍🏾 very informative. I have an ultrawide and a casual gamer. More and more people are buying ultrawides now. So in 5 years will this argument be mute? It's obvious there will be a competitive level in ultrawides and tech moves so fast so the quality has to and will improve for them..........watch this space 😃
Use this to shit down Blizzard's throat. I like how 21:9 isn't supported in Overwatch, but in WoW it is. WHERES THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE THERE BLIZZARD!? Same with Heroes of the Storm(while it is controlled by your zone, you can still see more of the map).
I think this video is wrong. I'm an ultrawide monitor user and The reason why I think ultra wide isn't being used by pros is because of frame rates and responce times. Only very very recently, have there been an ultrawide monitor with 144hz and 1ms responce times(I think there's only one commercially available, an LG). Before this they where mostly all 100hz max and 4ms repsonce times. That's not enough for the pro competitive scene. Now that some with very low responce times and and high Hz is now available I think things will quickly change. My opinion.
Good video but you didn't address one simple question, What games is it good for? Any type of FPS or shooter will not benefit form this as you said or for those who want to be "competitive" however any MMO, RPG, Strategy, SPACE SIM, RACING GAME will absolutely benefit from the extra space.
Isaac Sanchez FPS, Driving games, Third Person, Strategy/RTS, pretty much anything is better at 21:9 (the only problem is that some games can't be played/modded to work at 21:9
It gives a competitive advantage for other games that aren’t twitch shooters like racing games or flight sims. CSGO is an example of a close range twitch shooter where reaction times and spotting the opponent 1st trump all. It’s perfect for open world RPG’s like Witcher 3, Far Cry 5 and AC: Origins.
Nice ;) Im buying an ultrawide monitor next month, only for just only 1 single game - Star Citizen! They are currently supporting Ultrawide resolutions, and some people told me the game looks gorgeous with such monitor. And to every game out there that doesn't support 21:9, well F*** it.
you need more subs man i see people do this so much and they are way worse than you can you make an video for an complete advantage competitive setup with like the ultrawide screen etc that would be nice :D
I love high fives and I want a ultra wide monitor for over watch but you’re wrong on a lot of this. High dpi is pointless and a lot of the best players play on 800 dpi a good mouse costs 40$. Keyboards won’t make a difference and cost less than 80. Hertz does matter and the difference is clear but more fov is much better than 144 hz. If ultra wide is allowed then custom fov must be allowed. Fov matters in fast paced games like tribes, quake and to over watch. Csgo is a slow paced FPS which high fov works against.
i would like to add that i came across this video while considering to buy an ultra wide monitor but if not all games are gonna support it then im not sure if i want to invest my money into it
It's so dumb when games don't let you use wide aspect ratios because they give an advantage. Should games stop supporting 4K for seeing more detail? Limit everyone to lowest settings to be fair? Can't use above 60Hz monitors? Can't use an anti-ghosting keyboard? Most competitive users do other weird things anyway, such as doing 4:3 on 16:9
Yeah, I have an ultrawide monitor, and it's mainly for immersion. I don't play competitive, and most of my matches on Overwatch are coop vs AI. The Witcher 3 on ultrawide is amazing tho.
That's not how a sensor mouse work... the marketing say higher dpi=better and in some way it's true but only because if a sensor can reach high dpi is because it's a good sensor. Now that you see the maximum dpi you can forget about it because all sensor work much better at their lowest or close to lowest dpi. It's like the camera sensor. Marketing say more megapixels= better photo but in reality the lower the megapixels are the better the sensor is (because a 2mpx each pixel is huge and can read the light much better vs a 20mpx at the same sensor size and that's the same thing on mouse sensor)
I don't understand why would they ban 21:9 What's the point buying a 21:9 monitor then it becomes useless for gamers! I agree if it's competitive or a ranked match then okay everyone's should shrink to 16:9 Seriously 21:9 or 32:0 should be allowed it's like buying electric car and not allowed to charge.. WTF!
Fuck man idk i been thinking for about 1 year if i want to get an ultra wide monitor bc I'm scared that all new games and most games wont support it. I love games i buy a lot of games on day one from indie to tripple a day one. I'm scared i wint enjoy it bc not many games support it. I want a 1ms 144hz 1080p is fine for me
There are a lot of assumptions made in this video. I personally agree that ultrawide doesn't give any further benefit than what having a faster computer will give, but where I primarily disagree is with how you looked at the list of top CS:GO players and concluded that ultrawide monitors must not give an advantage because none of them have ultrawide listed in their configs. What is way more likely is that their setup doesn't have an ultrawide resolution because it's simply banned in a lot of competitive gaming tournaments. If you are that good, you probably give a shit about being able to compete, and if you're that good, you don't want to compete using a totally different resolution and FOV than what you're used to.
The thing that's stupid about Overwatch's and DeadbyDaylight's solution to this "problem" is that they don't even attempt a middle ground, they outright disadvantage the 21:9 users. Surely you could zoom in just a little so they get a little less vertical space and gain just a little horizontal space. outright zooming in looks hideous and you lose a ton of screen real estate, but atleast with a middle ground solution, you're losing some, but gaining it elsewhere. It's harder to argue that it's a straight advantage\disadvantage. (Kind of like how CS:Go has real 21:9 support, but many still prefer 4:3.) Though since deadbydaylight makes 0 use of vertical space, it could be different. Overwatch, on the other hand, has no excuse at all.
Blizzard might as well ban players with mid-high end GPUs, high framerate monitors and mechanical keyboards since they also give competitive advantage over the average PC build.
Hell, you can see people better in most games at very low resolutions without anti aliasing than you can at high resolutions and/or with AA because their jaggies stick out from the environment so you don't have the problem in modern games where everything blends together, likewise cranking up your gamma makes it easy to see people too. It's a trade off between immersion and your competitive advantage.
Ultrawide gamers are very clearly people who enjoy immersion or at the very least, enjoy cinematic things, and those are generally people who appreciate art or in other words are probably playing games for the experience. Casual doesn't quite fit. I'm a pretty hardcore gamer and I am quite good at FPS games but I really don't care about playing games competitively these days, often balance is so broken by constant DLC releases that taking most of them seriously is just shooting yourself in the foot. I'd say it's the opposite of casual, it's somebody who is very serious about experiencing the world in the game, or the film to its fullest.
I think what did it for me, was when I started playing Chivalry: Medieval Warfare and began to slowly crank up my FOV until I stopped around 110 or 115 and I realized how much less disorienting it was to perform complex maneuvers or fight off multiple people and generally not get stuck on foot high objects when I had a greater sense of my body in space, i.e. I could use my peripheral vision to determine where my shoulders were and therefore where my center of gravity was and so movement began to feel quite natural. However, the camera began to fish eye and things became very narrow. I started to think a lot about FOV and the shape of the human eye and just how much of our peripheral vision is available to us and how we use that. One thing was clear, the human eye can see a shit ton to the left and right and to ever make anything "first person" feel natural, the perspective is going to need to more closely match the aspect ratio of the human eye.
Plus, who wants to watch Lord of the Rings with black bars?
7:3
4:3 Is the standard on cs go because about 78% of the community plays on a pc with hardware that is equivalent to a calculator...
Miller Reid Hahaha This is so true. And they always have thousands of hours on CSGO with their potato of a computer.
please post it in blizzard forums
kakasedfg overwatch in 21:9 is awful, ive almost switched back to 16:9 in overwatch
how so? I find it ok, the screen is cut from the top the slight but the fov is far higher to the sides, making it feel more real to me as the peripherals feel perfect. Aren't the character models larger too? making it easier to hit them. Correct me if im wrong and if the slight stretch , if any, makes it harder to engage close range
Zain Shaikh um there is no extra peripheral vision granted within overwatch
Their offfcial statement was that they will never allow above 103 in FOV
Zain Shaikh theres no added fov when you play 21:9 in overwatch. do you know what they did? zoomed in the camera so it fills the entire screen, cutting out 30% of the horizontal fov.
High dpi is good for nothing, you need a good sensor and thats all.
*Sn0w true
better sensors give higher dpi you fucking dumbass lmaooooooo
@@armadillocock420 high dpi means little to nothing
blizzard should cap their games to 30fps since more than that could give some player advantage
that would be disgusting to see and unfair for people who spent hundreds of dollars on their pc
Hola ur so dumb
Daniel Baek wow r/whoosh
@@danielbaek960 yes AHAH
Stupidest comment I’ve ever seen
I would like to disagree with you saying there isn't a community of ultrawide gamers! (great vid otherwise tho haha ;P)
got to keep in mind that a ultra wide is actually allot smaller than you think in height than a normal 16:9 screen of the same size in inch.
jup its good for open world games
Five years later, ultrawide market share has gained respectably! I got one three years ago myself, too.
Great Job. Very informative!
Some games: "UW is unfair!"...has a fov slider
Lol
I think the reason why a bunch of pro players don't use ultrawide is because most of the best players have been playing shooters for many years and they have been used to 4:3. When they're already among the best in the world at what they do while in 4:3, what incentive do they have to deal with the learning curve to switching to a different aspect ratio? I'm sure many of them at least tried it, felt like it was nice visually but it just wasn't the same (obviously because they weren't used to it yet), and went back to 4:3. In fact I'm sure what I just mentioned most likely applies way more to 16:9 because almost everyone at least has a 16:9 monitor these days. But ultrawide is basically still new to the market, and to many it just feels like a gimmick so most people don't even try it.
You need to have more subscribers. Great video
2:18 That guy is in my class lol
You didn't even give him credit haha i'm sending him i snap now... What are the odds!
It's more of an excuse by lazy developers that can't be bothered to implement this aspect ratio into their games in my opinion.
What I don't understand is how billiard things zooming in for us ultrawide users is more fair when it puts us at a disadvantage.
4:3 aspect ratio does not mean you're playing with black bars. A lot of players play with stretched image so it can still be 16:9 or even 21:9... but it's simply stretched.
Excellent video man. Super informative.
Funny thing about ultrawide is you can get that 120 16:9 fov at a little under 110 on 21:9 and without extreme fish eye. It's just a better visual experience, comparable to active sync in that it just makes the image better.
Sure you can do 120 fov on a 21:9 monitor but it kinda defeats the purpose.
There's a fundamental issue in tournament LAN settings. There is no guarantee that the tournament venue allows for UWM monitors to be used AND have hardware capability to run it smoothly during the event, alongside prep time between games. Generally speaking you want to compete on the same gear you practice on to achieve consistent results. Even if UWM has an advantage, its mitigated by not being able to utilize it consistently at tournaments.
That and TTK is so short for competitive FPS that cursor placement is more important than peripheral vision. Even if you can see more with peripheral extensions provided by UWM, if your wrist snap isn't fast enough you're just gonna get insta-domed.
I bought a X34 predator, a 3440x1440 100hz capable G-sync compatible beast, my K/D for BF1 has improved from by 50%.
However I do agree the aspect ratio is only part of the reason, I was on a 1080p 60hz monitor before, and I feel the combined improvements of aspect ratio, resolution, and improved frame rates have been the reason of my rise in KD.
Besides, I think ultrawide monitors are best at non competitive games anyway, strategy games and immersive games like ABZU and racing games benefit greatly from them. Not to mention there great at watching 21:9 compatible movies.
Great great great video! Hoep you got a A+! As an UltraWide user I refuse to buy Overwatch or any game that doesn't support 21:9
I bought the game because i played the beta and ultrawide was properly supported, then i play the full game and i saw they removed it. I still play the game with black bars though because it's too good to pass.
You just refuse buying game whitout pay2win mechanics
love the video and I 100% agree with you!
Loved your in-depth analysis, what a great video!
4 years ago thats what a ultrawide looked like, these days we have 240hz 1440p 49" curved ultrawide monitors with 1ms response time.
csgo is 5v5, not 4v4.
Did you not see his correction in the video?
How sad you can't read....
Why not just make 5:4 display more vertically and less horizontally than 21:9? The most logical solution.
Great video, dude! Very accurate, there's no need to punish someone who buys one type of peripheral when the others aren't considered as competitive advantages as well!
so.... I just have to deal with black bars. eagh
I think the whole 21:9 "they see more" just funny. The advantage starts with resolution. 720p for example in Arma3, Red Orchestra and lets say Planetside 2 is just too low to see everyone. I noticed the need for 1080p+ when I started playing Euro Truck Sim 2 because the GPS was just too low res and the game in general had bad antialising. Then there is FOV. The FOV can change a match significantly... And now they have a problem with 21:9 ? I would say 240Hz monitors can be equally game-changing compared to 21:9 or low latency monitors.
Definition of irony: Watching this video on a 34" widescreen monitor with black bars wither side :) (Tongue in cheek)
Same goes with internet connections. Some one in a city may have great ping because they live in a city where the internet infrastructure is very good. While someone in a rural area has really poor ping because there internet is really bad because the infrastructure is poor. (There's of course more factors to a fast and slow internet but bare with me). Say both those people are in a game of Overwatch, should we ban people with high or low pings for a positive / negative competitive advantage?
Mcone Jackson most games kick you out if your Internet connection is shit, since it actively fcks over the people you're playing with.
CS:GO does ban ultrawide, at least for me, by the way. I use a 31:9 monitor and they just stretch the edges, which kind of makes it worse since the stretched area is OUTSIDE my field of view anyway.
Maybe this is just an unsupported aspect ratio?
It's quite odd.
This video was very well made and you deserve way more attention
can anyone tell me what game is at 1:30
you said they do 4:3 because it stretches, but that's clearly wrong because seconds before you show the excel sheet of the players settings and it clearly says 4:3 black bars for most of them
any1 knows what case is on 5:15 mark
Oh man, I totally forgot they could crop your FOV on UW in some games. For gaming its a hit or miss, but for media consumptions it holds its ground against the competition.
So should I get an ultrawide for gaming?
2:58 argument about the rule "if one is ok then, they're ok" is wrong.
First, because ultra wide monitors give player advantage of having more information without need to look around too much. As for fps.
Similiar - in rts like Starcraft 2, you can see more map, without need to move camera much. Same for Fortnite, etc.
So if we would say "ultra wide is ok" then having the same rule we should also say "cheats that remove fog of war are ok" or "cheats that show you enemy behind the wall are ok" why? Because all of them give the player information that he should not see. At least it gives advantage over other players, who need to look around to get those information instead.
There is difference between equipment that gives you additional info over a map vs equipment like high dps mouse, or better refresh rates of monitors.
The reason why top e-sports players use standard equipment - is they have to train on eq which is allowed on tournaments.
Ultrawide isn’t better for competitive reasons in FPS game but for immersion. The UI will be further away from your centre field of view which allows you to focus on the pretty graphics easier. Ultrawide will benefit racing games in a competitive manner though for sure.
Every aspect can be considered P2W on a PC .. the GPU makes a huge impact and was overlooked. If people are whining then buy a frigging console and STFU.
ofc they do that is why some competitive games don't support ultra wide, but then again you don't get 120-144 hz
songs used?
idealism - controlla
jinsang - here we go
tomppabeats - monday loop
nave - fade keys (unreleased)
cosmicat - strange cat
4:3 on ultrawide, now i can't miss anything
Nice video, its worth highlighting the biggest advantage/disadvantage of all, low and high latency due to internet connection quality and distance. If Tards like Blizzard wanted to make things "fair" they would impose artificial latency so all players were near the lowest common denominator maybe 200ms.
this happens in apex and cod, as well as other games I'd assume. it's called lag compensation. maybe not as extreme as what you said but certainly it isn't fair.
TLDR?
They need to stop "banning" it by giving you 30% less space or stetching the edges. They should just crop some at the bottom and give you extra on the side at the very least. Also how about actually support it better to where I can fullscreen window it without it having black bars on the sides?
Great video, good points!
The Witcher III on Ultrawide and the fields of Touisant, or play ABZU. Man, thats something.
Awesome video man
So is it worth getting a 21:9? I play modern warfare. Will that boost my gameplay? Will it give me a competitive advantage or should I just stick to 16:9 but get a higher refresh rate monitor?
i like the video, very professional 👌
I have never met somebody with an ultrawide monitor who games competitively and doesn't use a 16:9 monitor for their competitive gaming, or at the very least acknowledge that they should have one for the games they are trying to be competitive in. It's this weird thing where people who have 16:9 monitors think 21:9 monitors are an advantage and thus envious, yet the people with 21:9 monitors still use 16:9 monitors for gaming competitively.
Ultrawide monitors aren't even an advantage over 16:9, in no real way pay2win like high end gpus/monitors. If I use a 21:9 monitor I, by default, have to process atleast ~30% more pixels. This drops my fps, which is a disadvantage. The few milloseconds of constant disadvantage one faces heavily outweighs the occasional moment where you can see something normally off screen on a 16:9 monitor. It's a best a trade off. Lower skill players might actually see an advantage, as they don't posses the skill for a few milloseconds disadvantage to matter. But at the pro level they obviously care about a constantly few milloseconds advantage with 16:9 or even 4:3 than the occasional and rare benefit an increased fov holds.
There's also the inherent disadvantage of distortion. Being wider always distorts the images more on the sides. You can see that going from 4:3 to 16:9, or 16:9 to 21:9 or even 21:9 to 32:9. This makes snap aiming much more difficult, even if you see something you otherwise wouldn't have.
The point is not that there isn't anyt advantage or disadvantage, the real point is it god damn fucking insignificant. Especially compared to all the other payable hardware advantages.
The most anoyying part about this discussion are the idiots who are against it. If the support exists, nobody cares. But whenever somebody wants that support suddenly the morons come out of the woodwork about how it's a serious advantage.
what was the last game in this video the one with cars?
AndreTurboDiesel that’s project cars. You can search it up if you want.
please
if i change ratio on my ultra wide 21:9 to 5:4 or 16:9 it will be ok with rainbow six ???
Floki r6s is compatible with 21:9
Good vid 👍🏾 very informative. I have an ultrawide and a casual gamer. More and more people are buying ultrawides now. So in 5 years will this argument be mute? It's obvious there will be a competitive level in ultrawides and tech moves so fast so the quality has to and will improve for them..........watch this space 😃
Oof
Did This man say CSGO is 4V4 WTF?
Average Na player
This guy must not have played the game much, because everyone who's played it knows that it is a 5v5 game.
it must be a glitch because I all ways see 4 players on my team and 5 on the other strange....
He corrected it in the video if you read
Use this to shit down Blizzard's throat. I like how 21:9 isn't supported in Overwatch, but in WoW it is. WHERES THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE THERE BLIZZARD!? Same with Heroes of the Storm(while it is controlled by your zone, you can still see more of the map).
in world of warcraft it honestly gives no advantage expecially not in arenas , maybe in battlegrounds but thats about it
-i play in 5760x1080 fyi
Hi. Good video. Do you recommend this monitor for xbox one and macbook pro (mid 2012) ?
my overwatch game is like the worst quality with my ultrawide screen ;(
I have a gtx 1060 and a 34 inch ultrawide yet I’m amazing at games
now in 2018 0.7% uses 1080p ultrawide.
I think this video is wrong. I'm an ultrawide monitor user and The reason why I think ultra wide isn't being used by pros is because of frame rates and responce times. Only very very recently, have there been an ultrawide monitor with 144hz and 1ms responce times(I think there's only one commercially available, an LG). Before this they where mostly all 100hz max and 4ms repsonce times. That's not enough for the pro competitive scene. Now that some with very low responce times and and high Hz is now available I think things will quickly change. My opinion.
Good video but you didn't address one simple question, What games is it good for? Any type of FPS or shooter will not benefit form this as you said or for those who want to be "competitive" however any MMO, RPG, Strategy, SPACE SIM, RACING GAME will absolutely benefit from the extra space.
Isaac Sanchez FPS, Driving games, Third Person, Strategy/RTS, pretty much anything is better at 21:9 (the only problem is that some games can't be played/modded to work at 21:9
It gives a competitive advantage for other games that aren’t twitch shooters like racing games or flight sims. CSGO is an example of a close range twitch shooter where reaction times and spotting the opponent 1st trump all. It’s perfect for open world RPG’s like Witcher 3, Far Cry 5 and AC: Origins.
How about acknowledging the smaller percentage in the Ultrawide community? 32:9 monitors could use some support in games as well
What mic do you have mate? Xx
Very underrated.
Nice ;) Im buying an ultrawide monitor next month, only for just only 1 single game - Star Citizen! They are currently supporting Ultrawide resolutions, and some people told me the game looks gorgeous with such monitor. And to every game out there that doesn't support 21:9, well F*** it.
you need more subs man i see people do this so much and they are way worse than you can you make an video for an complete advantage competitive setup with like the ultrawide screen etc that would be nice :D
If my monitors latency was lower, it would have huge advantage. my ultrawide is a dell 34 inch at 3440 by 1440
The only thing where ultra wide gives a possible advantage is moba or RTS that doesn't utilize proper fog of war.
I love high fives and I want a ultra wide monitor for over watch but you’re wrong on a lot of this. High dpi is pointless and a lot of the best players play on 800 dpi a good mouse costs 40$. Keyboards won’t make a difference and cost less than 80. Hertz does matter and the difference is clear but more fov is much better than 144 hz. If ultra wide is allowed then custom fov must be allowed.
Fov matters in fast paced games like tribes, quake and to over watch. Csgo is a slow paced FPS which high fov works against.
i would like to add that i came across this video while considering to buy an ultra wide monitor but if not all games are gonna support it then im not sure if i want to invest my money into it
It's so dumb when games don't let you use wide aspect ratios because they give an advantage. Should games stop supporting 4K for seeing more detail? Limit everyone to lowest settings to be fair? Can't use above 60Hz monitors? Can't use an anti-ghosting keyboard? Most competitive users do other weird things anyway, such as doing 4:3 on 16:9
High refresh rate not same advantage like a much bigger fov
can I get an amen
Peter Steiner
Amen
Maybe an ultrawide monitor would help when a 4:3 is stretched to 21:9. This way the enemies are even bigger and easier to see.
No no no
Yeah, I have an ultrawide monitor, and it's mainly for immersion. I don't play competitive, and most of my matches on Overwatch are coop vs AI. The Witcher 3 on ultrawide is amazing tho.
great video
*makes video about 21:9*
*Is in 16:9*
Bruuuuuuuh.
Arless Hill I
Typical user, ikr. (Facepalm) 1920 x 810 or higher please when ya render.
Great video! I'm sure your teacher gave you a pretty high grade for this.
i use super ultra wide...
This channel had potential.
Great rational opinion 👍👍👍 thanks
Great Video
Over watch ultrawide support is ridiculous
Usually cs games are 4vs5, im in the 4 guys team everytime xD
UWD is the future,,, saying this after i had using it for 4 month now. i could not back to 16:9 anymore.
i am a gamer all time no editing work at all
if high dpi help control maus better, why people you play cs go chose 400-800
playing at lower than hd Resolution and 4:3 aspect Ratio a high dpi would be to fast ....
That's not how a sensor mouse work... the marketing say higher dpi=better and in some way it's true but only because if a sensor can reach high dpi is because it's a good sensor. Now that you see the maximum dpi you can forget about it because all sensor work much better at their lowest or close to lowest dpi. It's like the camera sensor. Marketing say more megapixels= better photo but in reality the lower the megapixels are the better the sensor is (because a 2mpx each pixel is huge and can read the light much better vs a 20mpx at the same sensor size and that's the same thing on mouse sensor)
I don't understand why would they ban 21:9
What's the point buying a 21:9 monitor then it becomes useless for gamers!
I agree if it's competitive or a ranked match then okay everyone's should shrink to 16:9
Seriously 21:9 or 32:0 should be allowed it's like buying electric car and not allowed to charge.. WTF!
Fuck man idk i been thinking for about 1 year if i want to get an ultra wide monitor bc I'm scared that all new games and most games wont support it. I love games i buy a lot of games on day one from indie to tripple a day one. I'm scared i wint enjoy it bc not many games support it. I want a 1ms 144hz 1080p is fine for me
I hate how people say it gives people an advantage. I remember people pissing themselves on the Mechwarrior forums over people using 3 monitor setups.
There are a lot of assumptions made in this video. I personally agree that ultrawide doesn't give any further benefit than what having a faster computer will give, but where I primarily disagree is with how you looked at the list of top CS:GO players and concluded that ultrawide monitors must not give an advantage because none of them have ultrawide listed in their configs.
What is way more likely is that their setup doesn't have an ultrawide resolution because it's simply banned in a lot of competitive gaming tournaments. If you are that good, you probably give a shit about being able to compete, and if you're that good, you don't want to compete using a totally different resolution and FOV than what you're used to.
So buying the monitor I want makes me a pay2win player?
This is why I don't usually play competitive games, some standards are retarded.
The thing that's stupid about Overwatch's and DeadbyDaylight's solution to this "problem" is that they don't even attempt a middle ground, they outright disadvantage the 21:9 users. Surely you could zoom in just a little so they get a little less vertical space and gain just a little horizontal space. outright zooming in looks hideous and you lose a ton of screen real estate, but atleast with a middle ground solution, you're losing some, but gaining it elsewhere. It's harder to argue that it's a straight advantage\disadvantage. (Kind of like how CS:Go has real 21:9 support, but many still prefer 4:3.)
Though since deadbydaylight makes 0 use of vertical space, it could be different. Overwatch, on the other hand, has no excuse at all.
0.55 + 0.25 = 0.80 not 0.75
What is that 0:42 game? Great video btw, nice analisys
dardoschi did I find the name?
wow it's the exact same monitor as mine
Absolutely! I have an advantage over other players in FPS.
*I have a LG ULTRAWIDE monitor.*