I’m not arguing. Lol. Come on now. I’m friendly!I only ever used my Wii (since 2007) as a 16:9 console, because that's what it is: An SD widescreen console. You could downgrade it to non-widescreen if you wanted, and for obvious reasons it was in that format by default. But anyone with a modern TV switched it immediately and was happy to do so.
And it is hilarious to read that it "might be tricky to see the benefits" on a 32" monitor because if that's the case, there are no benefits. I feel like I'm arguing with an audiophile who is fully prepared to buy an electron microscope to prove that the waveforms produced by 12" 60 gram digital remaster vinyl record are superior to the original recording from the master tapes. I am happy for you that you enjoy 4:3 on your Wii. But it's 16:9 for the rest of us.
I mean I think it’s pretty factual to say that it’s harder to see differences in a 32” vs say a 50”+ screen. That’s not me taking bad about your screen but facts.
It’s also a fact that anamorphic widescreen is more of a trick widescreen and the Wii is at its heart a 4:3 console. You’re not gaining more pixels you’re using the same amount of info from 4:3 just stretched by your tv. Thus blurrier and in some cases much blurrier depending on your TVs scaler.
I’m not telling people they are bad for choosing 16:9. I’m just saying that it’s a fact that if they want a bit more sharpness then 4:3 will provide it. On a 32” and under then the gains are much less obviously. The diflicker is still the biggest jump imo.
Agree to disagree.
If you can help me with my Virtual console on USB loader issue im forever in your debt. lol.
Last edited by kobeskillz,