Prejudiced

Does a game that runs in windowed mode seem less of a game than a fullscreen Game.
That is, if you were a reviewer for PC CoolGames (or whatever), would you subconsciously mark it down because it was a windowed game.
As an example, GalCiv (say), could quite well work as a windowed game. The gameplay would be the same, but would it have gotten a lower mark for being windowed?

Well, depends on the game really. Also depends on the size of the window - if it is full-screen windowed, then I cannot imagine much fuss - if the window is locked into a sub-full size then it may be asking for critisicm.

I seem to remember that on the Amiga there was a genre of games called `workbench games` which typically were small non-intrusive simple windowed games, designed to co-exist well with the desktop. I think if you are just putting your game into a window and letting it sit there, if it's filling most of the desktop you might as well make it fullscreen since it's obtrusive anyway, or make it scale well to let the user cooperate with the rest of their activities. I think people many people would equate full-screen with `commitment` and windowed mode with `compromise`. On whatever level, psychologically, the commited display is probably going to get more thumbs up than the compromising.

But what gives even more of a thumbs up, is offering a choice. :-)

Any directx game that allows windowed mode and allows the user full control of sizing that window gets extra marks for having common sense from me. Anything less gets a markdown.

If it remebers it's last setting then that's extra marks, as is starting out centered the _first_ time you run it. Having all things optional like this also get's higher marks.

Having a game dictate what I do on my system and then not catering for my set up gets it uninstalled immediately, as it's by then shown itself as beig ill conceived utter rubbish, no doubt written by some dreadful bit twiddler with no clue.

I'm going to assume you mean us to distinguish between games which are exclusively windowed or at the very least run in a window by default and games which are either exclusively fullscreen or default to fullscreen. A lot of fullscreen games have an option to run in a window, even major ( and supposed AAA ) retail games.

My perception would be that a game which exclusively runs in a window, or does so by default, is a casual game. By which I mean a game which is intended for me to play in short periods, and perhaps while doing other things such as chatting, working or browsing. My subconscious might then work on from that to assume that games which run in a window are not intended to absorb me in the way that a particularly deep, involving strategy game or a fast paced action game might do.

Also, the fact that they don't fill the screen will automatically reduce my level of immersion, since the illusion that I am actually in the province of Tamriel ( to take Oblivion as an example ) is impossible to maintain when it's side by side on the desktop with Skype, a couple of messageboards and an IDE ( Blide runs almost 24/7 on this PC ;) )

So I'm sure I would mark down any game which was the sort of game which should try to immerse me, or take all of my attention because it's going to fail to do that. If it were ( for example ) a Scrabble game or a sports management game where I was going to flick back and forth with something else by necessity because there are quiet moments in the game where sitting there staring at the screen is largely pointless, then I would probably mark it down if it were NOT running in a window, because it's more helpful to be in a window.

In short, it would depend on the game, and it would work both ways. For me.

I prefer to run Football Manager 2007 in window-mode (albeit full-screen window) and, in fact, It would be a dissapointment if it could only run in full-screen.

It is one of the few games I can think of whereby the game resolution is actually higher in window mode as opposed to full-screen.

If it's meant to be an immersive experience, full screen is a necessity.

If it's meant to complement real life rather than replace it for short periods of time, then it should be able to run in a window.

@Gabriel,

Yep, I do mean designed to be windowed, upto and includeing the screen size taking account of the titlebar size.

Is that true? I should probalbly say I prefer TBS or RTS to FPS.

As another example of what I mean, Colonization, this has a proper title bar, with file, edit and the others, and so does for example Civ II. Full screen was maximized window. In my experiance this is quite rare noadays, with most full price games being full screen in the first instance. Now I dont imagine writting a full price game, but have the producers of these games decided that not full screen looks amaterish?

Think about it -- if you have a windowed game, it's real easy to get very visually distracting things around the edges of your window. I've seen a good number of user desktops over the years, and it never seizes to amaze me what kind of background images and color schemes people pick (or end up with). If you have neon orange and green sticking out all around your windowed game, it will reduce the immersiveness... Plus keep in mind the hundreds of icons some poeple keep on their desktop, which leads to a very visually distracting background for your game.

Personally I *much* prefer full screen games over windowed, for the lack of external distraction alone... That said, I do appreciate a game that can switch back and forth between full screen and windowed (or at least ALT-Tab properly) so I do have the option to pause and use other programs as well, should the need arise.

Think about it. A borderless maxiamised window, is still in windowed mode, but you cannot tell because it takes up the whole screen.

But anyway that wasnt my point, my point was that you are able to ignore the monitor frame and the restof the room, so how much harder is it to ignore the title bar of a window?
If you had been comparing windowed mode to vertual reality glasses, then ok. But I dont think that its a valid statement. However, I also dont think I need a 42" (Or even colour), TV to immerse myself in TV, so maybe Im just more easerly immersable than you.

You'd be surprised. Personally I find my current monitor with a black bezel to be easier on the eyes than my old one with a silver bezel, for exactly that reason. :-/

Crappy eyesight is bad enough by itself, but additional distractions certainly don't help.

Why choose one? The game should support both and most portals require that it statrs in full-screen mode even if it's totally casual like a card game.

Minesweeper/solitaire <-- Windowed and wouldn't work full screen. No one would play them cause they interfere and would take too much time to bother with.

Basicly. If your game doesn't have a time element. It can be in a window. If it has a time element. It needs to at least have the option of being fullscreen. Otherwise. That AIM window poping up over my almost high score would piss me off. (Bonus points if the game pauses when it gets knocked off by an AIM window.) (I'll mark you down if it crashes - looking at you Sim City 4)

It is less of a game. Why would I want to use less screen realestate than I have.

I play Solitaire fullscreen. Works well, although the cards are rediculously far apart.

You are playing it with the window maximised. True fullscreen would lower the screen rez to something like 800 by 600 to play the game and fill the whole screen.

I'm not prejudiced - I just don't like them.