A few old DOS games were actually released as 16:10 / 320x200 and displayed distorted on a 4:3 screen. In such cases, setting aspect ratio correction to off is the right thing to do.

That's been said in this thread before, but is that actually true for the games I mention in the post you quoted? Look at the EoB screenshots.

I once found a website with 'many' examples but I didn't bookmark it.
aspect.jpg looks like the correct display. Look at the squares with the arrows and the circle in the compass... (well, the squares could've been meant as rectangles - circles are the easiest way to notice)

Well, "fit" is what you get from GOG by default.

I think leaving THAT DOSbox setting on default is just lazy work (by GOG ).

It never affected me much because I often play those games in windowed mode (for integer scaling - (4x) 1280x960).

The 99% of the VGA dos titles were released at 320x200, and all of them were intended for a 4:3 monitor. But some of them didn't correct the 2d sprites to look right at the intended 4:3.

I mean, the developers used to draw the raw sprite relatively deformed to look fine and not deformed when the monitor scaled the image to 320x240. But for several reasons it was not always done correctly or taken in account.
The worst of all is that some of those games had some graphics corrected and other graphics non corrected into the same game. Giving inconsistent image not matter which option chosen (aspect correct on or off)

I do not know why but this is noticeable in some very old games originally launched in Commodore Amiga and afterwards in DOS.

Thanks for that.

I've since remembered that the game had weight issues even without widescreen.

https://princeofpersia.fandom.com/wiki/Politician

The original Worms suffers from this. Some of the graphics are clearly meant to be stretched to 4:3 like the title screen, but the circular explosions and resulting holes in the environment end up elliptical if the game is stretched to 4:3.

Other example could be Lure of the Temptress. If the correct aspect ratio is used, the intro shows a logo and a giant moon clearly deformed like a "melon in equilibrium" but the game itself looks fine. In 16:10 the intro shows fine but the rest of the game is noticeabily deformed/incorrect.
In ScummVM it is easily comparable on the fly with the combo keys control+alt+a to switch between modes.

In a lesser way The Secret of Monkey Island suffers from the same but only in a couple of little graphics. Nothing too Important.

TFX from DiD shows apparently perfect cicles in the cockpit gauges without aspect ratio enabled but the portrait graphics and probably the world etc it looks deformed...etc

And of course xcom ufo. The tactical part looks like intended if 4:3 but the strategic planet part Shows another melon planet. I remeber playing my xcom ufo win95 port from the collector's edition and it had that glitch as well.

Just some examples. Greetings

I'll take a third option: Windowed Mode.

Absolutely keep aspect ratio. If there are tweaks or patches to improve the resolution I'd definitely use them, but keeping the original proportions. Imo if a game was made thinking about 4:3, it should be played in 4:3. There are some exceptions with excellent mods or source ports though, like Descent 1-2 or Quake.

Sorry I like the fit screen image.

I presume it was because DVD-movies, hence TVs, hence gaming consoles, used it? So PC eventually kinda had to follow suit.

PC has had to fight with two objectives which preferred opposite aspect ratios. In the past desktop and office programs would have usually preferred narrower and higher aspect ratios, which is probably why we used to have those higher 5:4 aspect ratio monitors for awhile (ie. they were narrower than even 4:3 TVs and monitors), and monitors that let you tilt the screen on its side so that it is 3:4. Easier to edit Word documents that way I guess.

But at the same time, movies and console games preferred wider 16:9 aspect ratio, so it kinda made sense PC (gaming) also went that way.

For modern desktop office work, I think wider is better nowadays, as most people want more desktop space sideways, which is why people have dual monitors. I've been thinking of replacing my two 16:9 monitors at work with bigger and much wider single monitor.

However, for laptops I don't think wider than 16:9 makes much sense because then the laptops just start becoming... too wide (the keyboard and case).

Can confirm. I still have a 16:10 monitor (although I did recently buy a new one at 16:9), and games that support 16:9 but not 16:10 are very very rare.

Either way, it's not a problem. I could have a 1:1 monitor and it's not a problem. I'm going to have black bars anyway, because my monitor is black and has bezels. Even if I had a monitor with a display surface that stretches from corner to corner, the image would still be surrounded by the blackness of my dark room.

I'll never understand why people keep complaining about "black bars." Like what's the big deal? Black Bars Matter?