Widescreen Gaming Forum

Thank you ... I don't have the game yet ... just wondered as some guys were asking in the TripleHead thread.
Dunno if I will bother if this doesn't get fixed for Widescreen (if not TripleHead).

The best analogy is widescreen DVDs. The movies are obviously shot in widescreen, and are presented as such on a widescreen TV. For a 4:3 TV, most movie studios put out a combination disc that supports 4:3 and widescreen, or two separate versions of the movie.

While we obviously don't need two versions of a PC game, the dev/pub could make a similar statement. "We made this game in widescreen, and that is the default perspective offered (i.e., letterboxed on 4:3). But, if 4:3 users would rather maximize their pixels (rather than the aspect), then we offer either Vert+ or Hor-. I'm not sure how we would grade a game that offered anamorphic and Vert+ on 4:3. But, giving the anamorphic option on 4:3 would prove their original intent.

Exactly Mr P ... it was after Ken Levine said "you will see more with widescreen" (in a post on the 2K forum after being asked about it ) that he then claimed that the view in widescreen (cut down) was "artistic design" ... lol ... he then winged about the bitter vitriol of the widescreen community ... :?

It was an unfortunate situation to be sure.

However, even though their widescreen implementation was poor by our standards that still doesn't mean that the FOV at 16:9 wasn't the one they specifically chose. Just because they didn't enforce a common vertical FOV does not mean that they didn't develop the game primarily for 16:9.

As said, I thought the FOV was too small regardless and I'm glad we made the stink that we did (though I kind of feel bad for Ken Levine & crew since no other game got as much negative press for being vert-), but it is entirely possible that FOV was their choice at 16:9 and they just ignored taller resolutions just wider resolutions have been ignored previously.

Guys I've said multiple times that I 100% agree that a vert-/vert+ implementation is not good, you don't need to keep trying to convince me of this. All I'm saying is that how do we know that widescreen is the compromised experience as opposed to 4:3 being the compromised experience?

... that still doesn't mean that the FOV at 16:9 wasn't the one they specifically chose. Just because they didn't enforce a common vertical FOV does not mean that they didn't develop the game primarily for 16:9.

No one will ever convince me that, Bioshock was designed in widescreen with that FOV.

I think they just wanted to sell their game and said anything they thought the buying public would want to hear in order for them to buy it ...
The comments from KL and 2K were just that.

I have had this debate so many times now ... (that really is the last I will comment on it ... :lol:)

I think it would be amusing to see a developer release a Vert+ "fix" that added back bars to non-widescreen resolutions. :twisted:

fake edit: is that how Assassin's Creed works?

... that still doesn't mean that the FOV at 16:9 wasn't the one they specifically chose. Just because they didn't enforce a common vertical FOV does not mean that they didn't develop the game primarily for 16:9.

No one will ever convince me that, Bioshock was designed in widescreen with that FOV.

Why not? Surely you understand that it uses fairly standard FOV for a console based FPS game, even the ones which were the previous generation ones which were developed primarily for 4:3 output and properly adapted to support widescreen using Horz+?

I think they just wanted to sell their game and said anything they thought the buying public would want to hear in order for them to buy it ...
The comments from KL and 2K were just that.

Sure, that is obviously a big part of Levine's job. So people wanted to hear that BioShock would have a wider view for widecreen users and he told us it would.

However, the people actually making BioShock built the experience to include things like a splicer running by the edge of your view just as you walk into a room. If they had made the narrower aspect ratios Horz-, then 4:3 users would miss seeing such elements of the game. That is the difference we are seeing with current generation console games, they are build to run in widescreen and hence have to maintain a fixed horizontal FOV to allow narrower aspect ratio users to see the designers view, where as previously games were generally designed around a 4:3 view and required a fixed vertical FOV to allow wider aspect ratio users to have everything the designers intended us to see in our views.

[quote]

... that still doesn't mean that the FOV at 16:9 wasn't the one they specifically chose. Just because they didn't enforce a common vertical FOV does not mean that they didn't develop the game primarily for 16:9.

No one will ever convince me that, Bioshock was designed in widescreen with that FOV.

Why not? Surely you understand that it uses fairly standard FOV for a console based FPS game, even the ones which were the previous generation ones which were developed primarily for 4:3 output and properly adapted to support widescreen using Horz+?

I think they just wanted to sell their game and said anything they thought the buying public would want to hear in order for them to buy it ...
The comments from KL and 2K were just that.

Sure, that is obviously a big part of Levine's job. So people wanted to hear that BioShock would have a wider view for widecreen users and he told us it would.

However, the people actually making BioShock built the experience to include things like a splicer running by the edge of your view just as you walk into a room. If they had made the narrower aspect ratios Horz-, then 4:3 users would miss seeing such elements of the game. That is the difference we are seeing with current generation console games, they are build to run in widescreen and hence have to maintain a fixed horizontal FOV to allow narrower aspect ratio users to see the designers view, where as previously games were generally designed around a 4:3 view and required a fixed vertical FOV to allow wider aspect ratio users to have the designers intended us to in our views.

Are you serious? Are you high?

Do you actually have an argument against anything I said, or just the desire to feign one?

I believe game designers are developing for widescreen, specifically 16:9 for the 360. Also, they love using low FOVs by default. Medal of Honor: Airborne, Call of Duty 4, and many others use a default FOV of 65. It's low, but it's what they chose. I am not going to sit here and say why they choose such a low FOV, but my opinion is that they choose such a low FOV so that you feel more "in the game." Using a lower FOV brings all the action closer to you and makes everything appear faster-paced and more action-oriented. When using a default FOV of 90, you kind of feel like you're sitting back from the action. I can easily try this out in PC FPS games and see the difference. However, I personally like a high FOV to sit back with because I can see more. This doesn't mean it's "right," though. This just means that the developer wants you to see and feel more action.

:)

_________________
Widescreen Fixer - https://www.widescreenfixer.org/

Widescreen Fixer Twitter - https://twitter.com/widescreenfixer
Personal Twitter - https://twitter.com/davidrudie

If I were to take a guess it'd be they choose a lower fov to:

a - render less things on screen aka, easier to get better performance
b - need to reduce the viewport so the sub-720p rendering doesn't show as much
c - are putting in their respective 'artistic visions' which, by the looks of other art fields (such as a blank canvas being considered art) can be a good or a bad thing.
d - all of the above.