Well alternatively, if it wasn't increased, 21:9 users would gain a big advantage in the form of inherently better viewing angles, due to the nature of the panels build. So they should at least try to balance it out.
Pretty sure that for every 'advantage' there would be an equally influencing disadvantage that would even it out once you go super-wide or multi monitor. Refresh rates, higher GPU requirements etc.
Why stop there? Why not lock frame rates at 60hz and 1080p as max resolutions so as 'not to give anyone an advantage' Why even go past 4:3 CRT? While we're at it lock it to single core 386 machines from the 90s...
I don't play the game so I don't particularly care but it seems a bit of a cop out by the devs.
Pretty sure that for every 'advantage' there would be an equally influencing disadvantage that would even it out once you go super-wide or multi monitor. Refresh rates, higher GPU requirements etc.
Why stop there? Why not lock frame rates at 60hz and 1080p as max resolutions so as 'not to give anyone an advantage' Why even go past 4:3 CRT? While we're at it lock it to single core 386 machines from the 90s...
I don't play the game so I don't particularly care but it seems a bit of a cop out by the devs.
That's a ridiculous argument and you know it - not only are there minimum system requirements and a common resolution, but the argument against higher FOV on wider screens is perfectly valid and entirely rational. Bringing up CRTs and 486s is a childish attempt at offering an opinion on this argument. Have a rusk, and f@#k off.
That's a ridiculous argument and you know it - not only are there minimum system requirements and a common resolution, but the argument against higher FOV on wider screens is perfectly valid and entirely rational. Bringing up CRTs and 486s is a childish attempt at offering an opinion on this argument. Have a rusk, and f@#k off.