Widescreen Gaming Forum

Yes it is their choice, but all art has standards by which it's judged. Say for example that you couldn't save your game, and they claimed that the lack of saves was a creative choice because they want you to play through the game in one sitting. Would you accept this, would you not criticize them for not having save capability like every other game on the market?

Many other video game developers have implemented hor+ widescreen, largely considered to be the correct, or at the very least, superior widescreen implementation because of the perspective/zoom issue as described above. Why should we not hold Bioshock to the same standards established by other games? So while it may have been their choice, it doesn't mean that it was the best one, or that we have to like it.

One of the great things about games is that criticism such as this can be much more easily addressed than other artistic mediums. Heck Racer_S did it in less than 48 hours and he wasn't even involved the game's development. So, we might seem spoiled for asking them to match a technical standard set by other games, but in the end we're really not asking for that much.

This is the perfect expression of the correct argument against all the people ranting about how it's the way the game was intended. Thank you, I might have to copy this!

I don’t think it would be prudent to start yet another BioS thread at the moment so just asking here, has anyone else thought that the hud elements are just a little off whatever you do if your in widescreen?

Sorry if someone did mention it as I did not see it but the central circle to me is an oval whether I am playing with the “Fixâ€

[quote]I don’t think it would be prudent to start yet another BioS thread at the moment so just asking here, has anyone else thought that the hud elements are just a little off whatever you do if your in widescreen?

Sorry if someone did mention it as I did not see it but the central circle to me is an oval whether I am playing with the “Fixâ€

Actually, there *are* water differences between DX9/DX10 no screenshot comparisons I've seen showed yet: DX10 will allow any physical object that comes in contact with a body of water to produce interactive waves that will perturb the surface of the water itself. NPCs moving in water will leave real trails instead of that splashy bitmap graphic you can see in DX9 mode. Also, bullets and objects that hit water will produce radial ripples. You can check it out in that bar section in the demo where you need to electrify two splicers showing up after walking through the small kitchen section. Looks really neat.

Actually, there *are* water differences between DX9/DX10 no screenshot comparisons I've seen showed yet: DX10 will allow any physical object that comes in contact with a body of water to produce interactive waves that will perturb the surface of the water itself. NPCs moving in water will leave real trails instead of that splashy bitmap graphic you can see in DX9 mode. Also, bullets and objects that hit water will produce radial ripples. You can check it out in that bar section in the demo where you need to electrify two splicers showing up after walking through the small kitchen section. Looks really neat.

I see exactly what you mean... I hope there's a DX10/Vista64 fix, but in the meantime at least I can play without a fully neutered view :).

[quote]
Now my question is: If the FOV were something that the majority of widescreen users found appropriate (not changed to, but had originally been). BUT the 4:3 version still maintained the same FOV using added horizontal space instead of letterboxing, would we still be having this argument?

Yes, we would. It might not be quite as big an issue, but there's still a problem - explained in my next comment.

I basically want to know is: Do the members of this forum feel that Widescreen HAS to have a wider FOV for games than 4:3 in every case? And if so, why?

If the FOV isn't wider, it's not just a matter of there being less environment visible, it also changes the perceived perspective. As you may have noticed the vert- implementation has the effect of making widescreen looked zoomed-in in comparison to the 4:3. With a hor+ implementation 4:3 and widescreen look the exact same in terms of perspective/zoom, there's just a little extra visible environement on the sides in widescreen. The thing is that perspective/zoom has a much greater effect on the experience than how much of the environment you can see. To keep the game experience as consistent as possible you should keep the perspective/zoom the same for all aspect ratios and simply vary how much horizontal space is visible, to do that as the aspect gets wider, the FOV must get wider along with it.

If you wish to know my personal opinion it is that the developers, much like a movie director, are entitled to their creative vision and if they say they intended the fov to be this way I will take them at their word and enjoy the game as they delivered it. (However I am curious to try the fov hack after I complete the game and see how the experience differs for better or worse)

Yes it is their choice, but all art has standards by which it's judged. Say for example that you couldn't save your game, and they claimed that the lack of saves was a creative choice because they want you to play through the game in one sitting. Would you accept this, would you not criticize them for not having save capability like every other game on the market?

Many other video game developers have implemented hor+ widescreen, largely considered to be the correct, or at the very least, superior widescreen implementation because of the perspective/zoom issue as described above. Why should we not hold Bioshock to the same standards established by other games? So while it may have been their choice, it doesn't mean that it was the best one, or that we have to like it.

One of the great things about games is that criticism such as this can be much more easily addressed than other artistic mediums. Heck Racer_S did it in less than 48 hours and he wasn't even involved the game's development. So, we might seem spoiled for asking them to match a technical standard set by other games, but in the end we're really not asking for that much.


Well said Stevedroid! :D

Here's my answer to GrimDanfango at 2Kgames regarding the same subject:

Originally Posted by GrimDanfango
People are welcome to their opinions, but all I'm suggesting is that this is it - they spent five years designing this - they haven't messed anything that blatant up.
Any fundamental design choice like this was poured over for weeks by the design team, and they've pretty much confirmed exactly what I was saying in their statement - and you can call them liars all you like, the one thing I can guarentee I AM right about is that they are speaking the truth.
That "field-of-view" is a completely arbitrary value, that they picked the one that best suited their design, and that any difference to some other developers choice does not constitute a code or design fault.

What you are suggesting is that they screwed up the FOV for 4:3 users and that they don't get to see the game as the creators intended, right? The cramped feeling people have about things being up too close with the widescreen zoom effect is being taken away from 4:3 users, so they don't get the same effect.

You see, horizontal FOV should actually be reduced when going from 16:9/16:10 to 4:3 if the "artistic integrety" is to be upheld. No matter how you twist and turn this, going from wide to standard, or standard to wide should involve a horizontal FOV change IF it would be implemented correctly.

So, the "artistic vision of the developers" are destroyed due to poor implementation of different aspect ratio FOV (4:3 vs. 16:9/16:10). This we can agree upon, right? No more of this "FOV is like the developers intended" crap. You are not defending the developers here and not doing anyone any favors. You're just saying they screwed up 4:3, not 16:9/16:10. In our opinion, its the 16:10 thats screwed up.

The thing is, their chosen FOV is something you find as default FOV of 4:3 resolutions with games that have true widescreen support. As it is, the game is actually more playable in 4:3 then in 16:10 due to their "choice of horizontal FOV".
I don't care if the 4:3 FOV is so large that you can do a rectum examination of your character. What matters is that the FOV chosen isn't suited for widescreens. The zoom effect you get with the poor implementation of "widescreen support", ruins the game. Trust me, I'm all into widescreen, but without the widescreen hack, I prefer 4:3.

It's funny how several new members of widescreengamingforum appear to have joined our community on or about August 21st solely to post about the Bioshock widescreen controversy (some have posted only in this thread) ... and they didn't register to look for a solution, but only to advocate the 2k company position, hook, line and sinker. Isn't that a coincidence?

See any of the posts by trll (a fitting name if ever there was one) for a prime example of what I'm talking about.

What's even odder, is that some of these "new members" seem to have been pushing the 2k company line, before 2k officially came out with it. Like this guy, for instance:

Opening up the 4:3 version rather than cropping off the sides of the widescreen version is a fine thing to do. Yes, it's perfectly acceptable. All of you are looking at it from the point of view of 4:3 going to 16:9, but that's most likely not how it's been developed. Look at it as the 16:9 version that's been modified for the 4:3 version. And really, who cares how they modify the 4:3 version? If they want to open up the top and bottoms, like is done with Super35 filming in movies, then fine. Has no bearing on the widescreen version. It's not "widescreen done wrong", or "screwing over the widescreen community".

Unless my timeline is wrong, he made this post before 2k released a statement making essentially the same absurd argument.

On political websites, anonymous posters sometimes show up to repeatedly argue a point of view that happens to coincide with the view of a particular politician. Oddly enough, they often turn out to have a hidden connection to that politician.

The term for this, in case any of you are unfamiliar with it, is "sock puppet."

It's funny how several new members of widescreengamingforum appear to have joined our community on or about August 21st solely to post about the Bioshock widescreen controversy (some have posted only in this thread) ... and they didn't register to look for a solution, but only to advocate the 2k company position, hook, line and sinker. Isn't that a coincidence?

See any of the posts by trll (a fitting name if ever there was one) for a prime example of what I'm talking about.

What's even odder, is that some of these "new members" seem to have been pushing the 2k company line, before 2k officially came out with it. Like this guy, for instance:

[quote]Opening up the 4:3 version rather than cropping off the sides of the widescreen version is a fine thing to do. Yes, it's perfectly acceptable. All of you are looking at it from the point of view of 4:3 going to 16:9, but that's most likely not how it's been developed. Look at it as the 16:9 version that's been modified for the 4:3 version. And really, who cares how they modify the 4:3 version? If they want to open up the top and bottoms, like is done with Super35 filming in movies, then fine. Has no bearing on the widescreen version. It's not "widescreen done wrong", or "screwing over the widescreen community".

Unless my timeline is wrong, he made this post before 2k released a statement making essentially the same absurd argument.

On political websites, anonymous posters sometimes show up to repeatedly argue a point of view that happens to coincide with the view of a particular politician. Oddly enough, they often turn out to have a hidden connection to that politician.

The term for this, in case any of you are unfamiliar with it, is "sock puppet."


i like to call this astro turfing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astro_turfing

I want to say thanks for the comments, but a dollar will do more justice.

if you got a moment check this out http://tocaedit.com/donate

I will fix the DX10 problem but its difficult without a DX10 card... not impossible.

just donate, hope others will do the same :)
let me also thanks you for the stalker fov hack too !

[quote]Looks identical to me... I'm in a huff now.

I admit that DX10 and DX9 version look basically identical.

The only noticeable difference that I saw was in the shadows. DX10 shadows are smoother and less jaggy.

[...]

Other things that I thought would be improved, like the water effects, look exactly the same in DX9 and DX10.

If this is all I will be sacrificing in order to use the FOV hack... then it's no big deal at all.

it feel less realistic in DX10 :shock: