Games Aspect Ratio

[!∞ INFINITE ULTRA MAXIMUM HYDERZ]

Early days of pc gaming monitor aspect ratio is 4:3, there are some 5:4.
Then came 16:10 and then 16:9 (most standard these days) .
Ultrawide appeared 21:9 and Super Ultrawide 32:9,
There are also 3 triple monitor setups.

I wish there is updated and clear information about the type of aspect ratio the game supports.

[Eudae]

Oprindeligt skrevet af crunchyfrog:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Eudae:

Okay. Point it out then. They have a section on online conduct which does not mention anything about bumps, necros, or trash talk. Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Read the front page on the main forum, or click the links to the right hand side of this page. It is mentioned expressly.

Oprindeligt skrevet af crunchyfrog:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Eudae:

I'm not wrong at all. You can be held accountable for rules and be ignorant of those rules without having agreed to them. The fact is you just don't know what "agreed" means. Find a dictionary. Get over it.

Not once did I state that I didn't have to abide by the rules. Learn to read before you write.

Can the snark please.

I merely pointed out that you agreed to the terms, and that IS what it legally means. I gave legal advice for enough years in consumer abnd disability law to know what something basic like that means.

And the bottom line remains whether you read it or not, you're still beholdne to it. Nothing changes that.

You must not have been a great legal counsel then. EULAs fail to hold up in court all the time. They aren't legally binding and are routinely dismissed even in your country because there is no expectation of the end user to have actually read it.

You're right, I am beholden to those rules. That's not even what we're arguing at this point. You broke the rules by backseat moderating instead of just reporting. I broke the rules by insulting someone. All you said was that I agreed to the rules which I never did - and you arguing that I "legally" agreed to the rules is incorrect and would not hold up in court because legally, here, no law was broken. I am surprised that as legal counsel you are unaware of the differences between rules and laws.

I guess maybe if I lived in the UK where you get arrested for misgendering someone I'd have broken a law. Luckily, I don't. Enjoy your rules.

[KennyAtom]

4:3 is the only true aspect ratio, anything above that is sinful.

[crunchyfrog]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Eudae:

Oprindeligt skrevet af crunchyfrog:

Read the front page on the main forum, or click the links to the right hand side of this page. It is mentioned expressly.

Oprindeligt skrevet af crunchyfrog:

Can the snark please.

I merely pointed out that you agreed to the terms, and that IS what it legally means. I gave legal advice for enough years in consumer abnd disability law to know what something basic like that means.

And the bottom line remains whether you read it or not, you're still beholdne to it. Nothing changes that.

You must not have been a great legal counsel then. EULAs fail to hold up in court all the time. They aren't legally binding and are routinely dismissed even in your country because there is no expectation of the end user to have actually read it.

You're right, I am beholden to those rules. That's not even what we're arguing at this point. You broke the rules by backseat moderating instead of just reporting. I broke the rules by insulting someone. All you said was that I agreed to the rules which I never did - and you arguing that I "legally" agreed to the rules is incorrect and would not hold up in court because legally, here, no law was broken. I am surprised that as legal counsel you are unaware of the differences between rules and laws.

I guess maybe if I lived in the UK where you get arrested for misgendering someone I'd have broken a law. Luckily, I don't. Enjoy your rules.

Wrong.

EULAs do indeed fail to hold up but the devil's in the details.

Ity's a myth spouted by people online that think because ONE EUAL lost ona c aluse that must mean they're all wrong.

Law does not work like that at all. So can you r silly claim that I didn't know what I was doing.

The fact is whether you read your agreement is moot to whether it's binding - it ALWAYS is. Your tacit agreement is enough. It makes it clear therein.

By all means demoinstrate any case where this EXACT reason of "I didn't read it" was thrown out in court. Go on, your burden of proof.

[Start_Running]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Eudae:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Snapjak:

If you wanted this to become a thing you would have made an actual suggestion in the correct area. Not bump a two-year old thread IN THE WRONG SECTION.

I had not realized it was in the wrong section. I went to "Steam forums > Suggestions" and then I searched for "Aspect Ratio". This topic just happened to not be in that particular section and I hadn't noticed. Calm down, autist.

Yeah but you kinda hit the problem on the nose... What it means to "Support" an aspect ration is rather debateable. Will it display in that aspect ratio but stretched? That's still supported. Does it letterbox, . Yeah that's still supporting.

[Eudae]

Oprindeligt skrevet af crunchyfrog:

By all means demoinstrate any case where this EXACT reason of "I didn't read it" was thrown out in court. Go on, your burden of proof.

Seriously what is wrong with your reading comprehension? I've stated multiple times explicitly that you are held accountable for breaking rules regardless of whether or not you agreed to them. I've not once stated otherwise. You stated that I agreed to the rules and I said I did not. Why are you arguing over facts?

[Eudae]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Start_Running:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Eudae:

I had not realized it was in the wrong section. I went to "Steam forums > Suggestions" and then I searched for "Aspect Ratio". This topic just happened to not be in that particular section and I hadn't noticed. Calm down, autist.

Yeah but you kinda hit the problem on the nose... What it means to "Support" an aspect ration is rather debateable. Will it display in that aspect ratio but stretched? That's still supported. Does it letterbox, . Yeah that's still supporting.

Yeah - that's still really useful information though. Some games letterbox which might be totally fine, and is preferable to the alternative (stretched, super zoomed in, etc). There aren't THAT many options to cover though - certainly less options than there are languages:

1. Any aspect ratio (vertical+, this is the one that causes the "zoomed" in look and is terrible)
2. Any aspect ratio (hor+, this is great. total support)
3. 21:9 (hor+)
4. 32:9 (hor+)
5. 16:10
6. 16:9
7. 4:3
8: letterbox support (or something)

You could probably just have a checkbox for vertical or horizontal scaling, and then a few checkboxes for the various aspect ratio options. Resolutions could work similar.

[Start_Running]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Eudae:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Start_Running:

Yeah but you kinda hit the problem on the nose... What it means to "Support" an aspect ration is rather debateable. Will it display in that aspect ratio but stretched? That's still supported. Does it letterbox, . Yeah that's still supporting.

Yeah - that's still really useful information though. Some games letterbox which might be totally fine, and is preferable to the alternative (stretched, super zoomed in, etc). There aren't THAT many options to cover though - certainly less options than there are languages:

Stretching and zooming can also be considered Supporting.
Dev/pubs will usually mention the support for outlier resolutions since that'd be considered a selling point. If they don't mention it, chances are they don't support it.


Languages are a bit easier but even there, there's legends about games with atrociously bad localizations.

[crunchyfrog]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Eudae:

Oprindeligt skrevet af crunchyfrog:

By all means demoinstrate any case where this EXACT reason of "I didn't read it" was thrown out in court. Go on, your burden of proof.

Seriously what is wrong with your reading comprehension? I've stated multiple times explicitly that you are held accountable for breaking rules regardless of whether or not you agreed to them. I've not once stated otherwise. You stated that I agreed to the rules and I said I did not. Why are you arguing over facts?

Because they are not facts. They're just assertions on your part.

It is well known that you by using this product or service have already agreed to the terms. It makes it implicit in those terms that those are a condition.

Now if you think that's wrong, then I'm sorry you're going to have to present how something standard in legal agrememnts is somehow miraculously not valid. That would be some claim now wouldn't it?

So have at it.Demonstrate how your claim of by not reading it means you are somehow not agreeing to said terms. Have at it.

Anyway, I'm not sure how you can both say you are bound by the rules even if you haven't agreed to them but then also say you didn't agree to them because that's contradictory under basic contract law.