Around 1996 I got my hands on a ~22" 1600x1200 monitor at work and was amazed by it. I remember games worked ok under Windows 95, but Quake couldn't handle that resolution under Windows NT 4. I got around 3fps, if memory serves.
Wow, I had never seen this article before -- John Carmack is rocking an Intergraph workstation! I had one of these, a dual Pentium II box, in 1998. It was a beast.
I didn't have a godlike monitor like that widescreen monster. Although I did drop $2000 on a 20" (22?) Sony multisync that could do 1600 x 1200.
I managed to get the company I worked for to buy the Intergraph. And I managed to sell a used Silicon Graphics monitor at a slight profit, to take some of the sting away from the Sony.
In the linked forum thread, someone asked whether there were even widescreen standard-def CRTs around at the time.
The answer is yes, but they were fairly uncommon. Most of these games were produced around the same time that DVDs were new to the scene. One of the "killer features" of DVDs was widescreen content and much-better-than-VHS picture quality, finally allowing the average person to get something very close to the movie theater experience in their own home. If they had a large high-end widescreen TV, that is...
The "widescreen" TVs at the time were mostly projection TVs (which did use a CRT tube, but were not usually referred to as CRT TVs) and plasma TVs. Plasma displays were somewhat popular for a fairly short period between the dominance of CRT and LCD TVs. But they were fairly expensive, so the vast majority of households simply went directly from 4:3 CRTs to widescreen LCDs once the prices on the latter dropped dramatically.
The companies releasing DVD movies typically either sold a particular movie in separate "standard" or "widescreen" editions, or bundled them both into the same box/disc because it was clear to _them_ that widescreen in the home was the future. And it was easy: pretty much every film was widescreen already. However, video game makers were targeting the existing market which was mainly 4:3 CRT TVs and designing a game for both aspect ratios was usually not trivial. Hence why there were not many games that supported it. It was just a nice bonus for trade show booths and rich kids.
I don't think many game devs thought that their creations would live on. Most probably figured their games would be off store shelves in a year or two and completely irrelevant in three to four. So it makes sense they would not have planned for the future.
I'm sure no one, but a few prescient individuals, ever considered retro gaming/emulation would be a huge thing in 30 years. Even I can't believe it when I see seven year olds wanting to play SNES games.
The film industry had been around long enough by the 90s to have realized that there will be a market for classic movies and that it behooved the industry to future-proof when possible, especially for blockbuster films.
We had a Sony Wega TV CRT that had a special "16:9 Enhanced" anamorphic mode that basically narrowed the vertical scan area of the electron gun while keeping the same number of lines. For a while you could find specially mastered DVDs that digitized the source material at a higher than normal vertical resolution. If you played them on a normal TV, everything would appear vertically stretched. If you played them on the Wega (or other similar TVs? Were there others?), then the picture would be scaled down correctly and would appear super sharp and bright.
That just seems like normal anamorphic mode but I guess built into the TV? DVD players would do it for you too so long as you set the aspect ratio in settings to match your TV. Otherwise an anamorphic wide-screen DVD would be basically unwatchable on 4:3. DVDs were often released as Full Screen (4:3) or wide-screen editions which were typically anamorphic unless it was poorly done.
When I built my first computer I remember a guy helping me along told me "Your monitor IS your computer. Don't skimp on that."
After that I always had a nice monitor and it really was true. No matter how slow my computer was / is ... having a big screen to use it on makes it a lot easier to tolerate.
I always found it funny how some games were able to handle wide screen with no issues, others much more difficult.
This is an important point, and an oft-quoted mantra I've seen from older devs.
Your computer will change, and has little to know difference on your health.
Your monitor, keyboard, mouse (and chair/desk can also be included) are your long term tools that you use to interact with your computer. They can be a benefit or detriment to your health (eye strain, RSI, back pain). If you have to work with your computer for your job, and do so for many years, it's worth it to purchase tools that have long term benefits.
> it's worth it to purchase tools that have long term benefits.
Good luck finding an LCD with any concrete health benefits beyond any other. The industry literally just adds a bunch of gimmicks each year to see if people bite. All I can say for sure is IPS prevents you from needing to fix your head in one angle (especially for low contrast images), and most LCDs are too bright.
This reminds me of another issue: If you have a monitor with overdrive and use a color temperature adjuster like redshift, the overdrive smearing is often super bright while the rest of the screen is mellow.
> Since there isn’t a widescreen resolution in the SDTV standards
En Europe we had WSS (Widescreen signaling), a digital signal embedded in line 23 describing the aspect ratio: full 16/9, full 4/3, letterbox 16/9, etc. It was very useful in late 2000s for owners of 16/9 CRT TVs.
The Sega Model 3 (ca. 1996-1998) arcade emulator I co-wrote supports arbitrarily wide resolutions and expands the field of view of the 3D content to fit the screen width. It works beautifully despite the games performing culling at the original aspect ratio. If you choose a really extreme aspect you might catch objects being culled or ceasing to animate.
Model 3 also had a couple of 2D tile map layers which are more difficult to handle consistently.
You can see an example here (a few seconds in, there is a scene with a foreground layer that isn’t stretched, revealing the expanded viewport behind it): https://youtu.be/fGQodD4I600
In the intro sequence, a driver hops out of a burning car and then freezes at the edge of the screen. This normally would have been outside of the visible viewport. Otherwise, everything looks as expected.
> This shows you a lot more of the game world than you’d get in the standard 4:3 mode, but you can see that all of the 2D elements in the scene are displayed with the wrong aspect ratio. This lack of aspect ratio correction for 2D elements is common to most widescreen games of that era.
In my experience, building game UX for non-fixed aspect ratio requires a different and much more complicated architecture from the very beginning, so I would be quite surprised if any game developers of console titles in the 90s managed to do it. Even with modern game engines and layout tools proper support is still a headache.
And BTW, game UX is pretty different from the usual business app UX: you have a LOT of images that take up tons of texture budget (which you can save by slicing it up in creative ways) and you can't just stretch them: you have to anchor things up in pretty complicated ways. And once you add localisation, support for far-eastern languages and cultures (which have a different design language) and RTL, things get really interesting.
> Most people got their first taste of widescreen gaming with the Wii, Xbox 360, and PS3
To put on my pedantic hat for a minute: the Wii was only ever 480p and never truly output in widescreen
However, there was one exception: Super Smash Bros Brawl had a "widescreen" mode where it could widen the virtual camera such that if you stretched the 640x480 picture across a wide-screen TV, it would look correct
Edit: I should have read the article! Brawl did exactly what's described here as happening on older consoles
My main point was that the Wii, unlike the 360 and PS3, didn't actually output a 16:9 resolution, it was only able to use the trick described in the article, so I wouldn't include it under "most people's first taste"
Didn't realize more games used the same trick, though
I seem to remember monitors being 800x600 around that time, and a few years later did we even see 1024x768 become the norm.
It's mind blowing to imagine what 1080 would be like back in the day.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20110927044427/https://geek.com/...