Originally Posted by bd2003
You're working backwards from your desire to have everything in 2:35 and dismissing every practical reason why 16:9 exists. It's not that what you're saying doesn't have merit, it's just completely insensitive to everyone else's real world considerations. If fragmentation is your primary concern above all else, it should be self evident that fragmenting it again isn't a step in the right direction. Realistically, you can either have stability or you can have progress....but not both. So putting up 2:35 as the cure for fragmentation is completely hollow - you're fine with fragmentation, you just want it to fragment your way.
I'd love a world where everyone agreed with me and moved heaven and earth to defer to my desires too...but come on, you've got to recognize that's what you're saying here.
From my perspective, I'd love it if this next gen failed, and everyone moved over to PC gaming instead. And everyone had to buy a new $500 GPU each year or else they wouldn't be able to run the game. That way graphics are never held back to suit the low end. As much as I genuinely would love everything about that, and could conjure up a ton of semi-persuasive arguments as to why everyone should be on board, I'm pretty sure that proposal would fall flat too.
Well, if we take this back to the scope of the thread regarding "The Order: 1886", then it being in a cinema scope ratio is not in conflict with your post. I'm not suggesting it be an over-night shift. I firmly believe that to transition requires the content first, which is exactly what happened with the last transition. An example of content coming first is exactly this case, The Order:1886 being in a cinemascope ratio.
I see no reason everything can't just be cinemascope, given that there aren't any naturally occurring reasons for content to be 16:9 other than it simply being the ratio displays are commonly made in today. So, I am billing it as the cure to fragmentation because that's what I think it could be. Could being the operative word. If the common display ratio were to transition to a 2.40:1, then the staunch avid 16:9 defender could still get his content with no loss in screen size by choosing a TV of the same height today. The 2.40:1 consumer does not have that choice, so even if fragmentation were to continue past a transition period or last forever, it'd be more palatable.
This isn't about moving heaven and earth, nor is it to specifically cater to my desires, (ironically, this discussion stemmed for your comments about how Ready At Dawn is not catering to your desires by having a fill-the-screen option) it is about technological evolution. Your stance seems to suggest that 16:9 is perfect and will be the defacto standard ratio till the end of time, which to me seems bizzare, especially considering the founding and implementation of the ratio as nothing more than a compromise and as a ratio in-and-of-itself has no merit. To me, it seems that you're the one working backwards. You're saying 16:9 is good because it's there and that's all it takes to make it a good. I'm working forwards, in my opinion, by saying there is a fundamental purpose to 2.40:1 and advocating for a standard shift towards something with purpose and away from something that only exists as a compromise.
Regardless nothing is going to change overnight, and I'm not suggesting such. Baby steps. The Order:1886 is one of those steps.