Widescreen Gaming Forum

[quote]Correction: Cranky is as dumb as a doorknob.

:?:

He's just so dead-set on every game in the world being designed for 4:3 that everything should be corrected as 4:3. This is hardly the case anymore. 99.9% of the games for Xbox 360 are designed for 1280x720/16:9. He just refuses to accept that 16:9 is the default.

I'm not trying to argue whether a game handles certain things correctly or not. The lockpick screen, and certain setups (that can't be quite explained yet), are not scaling horizontally. The argument I'm trying to impose is that 4:3 is not the default. When you try to correct a screen to the way it was intended to look, you should be correcting it to match 16:9, since thats the default. You can see in the Xbox 360 shots, that both 16:9 and 4:3 have the gene projector cut off. Considering it's cut off for both views, it's pretty impossible to say that that wasn't the intended view. Another reason why it might look like that is because there's a fully modeled gene projector in the background that you can see moving in before it shows the screen up front. They probably just used the same asset.

Anyway, Cranky will never see or understand so there's really no point in arguing with him anymore.

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

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

Correction: Cranky is as dumb as a doorknob. The game is primarily a 360 game. It was their target. Therefore, how the game looks on the 360 in 16:9 IS THE WAY THE GAME WAS DESIGNED. 16:9 acts the same on the PC, as well, so if there's any discrepancy between 16:9 and 4:3, 16:9 is the correct one and the one that you should be correcting the FOV to match.

1 - The verbal abuse will stop now. There is no reason for that type of language. Civil disagreement is the rule.

2 - While I agree that the game was *probably* designed with widescreen as the default, I have so far seen no proof of that. And even if it had widescreen as default, was it 16:9 or 16:10?

I would say that a game like Rock Band or Guitar Hero was designed for widescreen. Looking at how they lay out the three note tracks and the vocal bar across the top, I can understand why they would make it "Vert +" in 4:3. Cutting space off the sides would seriously compromise the game layout. But, if I throw up Guitar Hero III in Surround, and in goes major Vert-, then they are still wrong.

Far Cry 2 was released on PC and consoles, and I don't hear anyone saying their Vert- implementation as right. In fact, I've read a ton of forum posts (here and at Ubi) where people say this is the first game to make them sick. Default does not equal correct.

3 - Every other Bethesda game has been first developed on PC, and then ported to consoles. Show me the developers blog or interview where they say that the Xbox 360 was the default platform. Until you can prove developer intent, then you are just speculating. I have an email from Hothead Games where they say they developed to 16:10 because that was the size of the monitors on their desks. That game was released on Xbox360, PC, Mac and Linux.

I can also show you a forum post on the Introversion website, that states their lead designer is damn-near crazy over proper aspect ratios - and that is why Darwninia supports any aspect you give it. They are even joking about releasing their next game with a 2.35:1 option.

3 - It is conceivable that a game was programmed differently between PC and console. Do I think Bethesda intentionally did that? No, their track record with Morrowind and Oblivion would suggest not. But, it can happen. As evidence I give you the whole EA Sport catalog. Widescreen HD trumpeted as a feature of "next gen" consoles on one side, and stripped from the PC versions on the other.

4 - The reality is that similar game scenarios behave differently in the game, and are possibly behaving differently for different people.

5 - I don't care (and I doubt Cranky cares) about the "default." We simply care about proper behavior. If 16:9 is the default, then it should be Hor+ over 16:10, and Surround should be Hor+ over them all.

1 - The verbal abuse will stop now. There is no reason for that type of language. Civil disagreement is the rule.

I wasn't trying to verbally abuse him. I was simply stating a fact. It will stop, however.

2 - While I agree that the game was *probably* designed with widescreen as the default, I have so far seen no proof of that. And even if it had widescreen as default, was it 16:9 or 16:10?

With the Xbox 360 as the desired platform, it is 16:9 that they chose as the default. (This is case-by-case of course, but you can be sure any game that is primarily targeted at the 360 will be for 16:9.)

Far Cry 2 was released on PC and consoles, and I don't hear anyone saying their Vert- implementation as right. In fact, I've read a ton of forum posts (here and at Ubi) where people say this is the first game to make them sick. Default does not equal correct.

I'm not arguing which is correct, I'm arguing which one is the default. With Far Cry 2 being primarily a console game, the default FOV is low because you sit further back when you play the 360. This doesn't always transfer over well to the PC where you sit closer.

3 - Every other Bethesda game has been first developed on PC, and then ported to consoles. Show me the developers blog or interview where they say that the Xbox 360 was the default platform. Until you can prove developer intent, then you are just speculating. I have an email from Hothead Games where they say they developed to 16:10 because that was the size of the monitors on their desks. That game was released on Xbox360, PC, Mac and Linux.

http://kotaku.com/5031982/why-bethesda-prefers-the-360-more-fallout-on-the-way
http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/bethesda-why-we-prefer-the-xbox-439961

"Bethesda's Peter Hines has explained why the software giants behind Oblivion and the forthcoming Fallout 3 use the Xbox 360, rather than PC or PlayStation as their main development platform."

I can also show you a forum post on the Introversion website, that states their lead designer is damn-near crazy over proper aspect ratios - and that is why Darwninia supports any aspect you give it. They are even joking about releasing their next game with a 2.35:1 option.

Good for them. Where does this fit in here?

3 - It is conceivable that a game was programmed differently between PC and console. Do I think Bethesda intentionally did that? No, their track record with Morrowind and Oblivion would suggest not. But, it can happen. As evidence I give you the whole EA Sport catalog. Widescreen HD trumpeted as a feature of "next gen" consoles on one side, and stripped from the PC versions on the other.

Every developer and publisher are different. Titles of the past would often be made for PC and then ported over to the console by some third-party. Nowadays, titles are often developed side-by-side for the consoles and PC, with some companies developing for the 360 primarily and then working on the PC version afterwards.

4 - The reality is that similar game scenarios behave differently in the game, and are possibly behaving differently for different people.

Indeed. I don't know why mine behave just like the Xbox 360 version yet other people have it behave differently.

5 - I don't care (and I doubt Cranky cares) about the "default." We simply care about proper behavior. If 16:9 is the default, then it should be Hor+ over 16:10, and Surround should be Hor+ over them all.

To me, proper behavior would be fixing the game to the default view. Because everyone is so set on 4:3 being the default, you end up zooming 16:9 views out or messing up the intended view because you think 4:3 is the default. I'm stating that for it to 100% proper and correct, you'll need to correct 4:3, and others, to match the 16:9 view. Any other correction you make will not be proper, but it may be a personal preference to you.

This is why I prefer the term scaling horizontally or vertically. Since 16:9 is the default, that would make 15:9, 16:10, 4:3, 5:4 all Hor-, while anything wider than 16:9 would be Hor+.

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

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

This "debate" if I may call it such is no longer serving any purpose that would be appropriate for a Fallout 3 DR thread. If you can't help us figure out *why* your shots resemble the 360 version when others' do not, then there's nothing we can gain by you insisting that your shots represent the "right" or "default" or "intended" view.

If there's no grounds for mine being correct then there's no grounds for any other being correct. I've tried to provide information on my setup. I use 1680x1050/16:10 as a desktop. I simply set the Fallout 3 options to use 4:3 and set it to 1024x768. That's all there was to it.

Considering it matches the developers intended 16:9 view, I see no reason to correct mine at 4:3.

Come on, Cranky, even you can't deny the evidence. Stop being so stubborn. I've just linked to an article that clearly states the Xbox 360 was their main development platform. It's obvious that their intended design was 16:9. 4:3 and 16:9 both behave the same on the Xbox 360, and mine on the PC matches it, too. There's no need to deny that the 16:9 view is the correct one.

I think the only thing that's really left is to find out why for some people, like Tanuki and eZ`, their 4:3 mode is incorrect.

If you want, I'll even take shots of other 4:3 resolution, and even 16:10, shots to further test.

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

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

If there's no grounds for mine being correct then there's no grounds for any other being correct.

That may be so. I'm not going with Tanuki's shots because I think he is more right than you. I'm going with his shots because he wrote the DR. Given a lack of proof that anyone is more "right" than anyone else, that's really all there is to fall back on. I'm not saying I'm satisfied with this outcome, but in the meantime it's the best I can do. Now, if we could figure out exactly why their shots are different from yours, that might just shed light on who is more "correct."

Considering it matches the developers intended 16:9 view, I see no reason to correct mine at 4:3.

Your PC view matches the 360 view. Maybe the 360 view is what the devs intended for PC. Or maybe they intended for the PC version to have a higher FOV on the grounds that the users sit closer. Saying anything absolute about the "developer's intended view" inevitably requires case-by-case assumptions and subjective interpretations.

I've just linked to an article that clearly states the Xbox 360 was their main development platform.

Ok. What if it was? What facts about the PC version can we objectively derive from the knowledge that its development was secondary to 360 development?

It's obvious that their intended design was 16:9.

It's not even obvious that they had an intended aspect ratio at all. The only thing that would seriously suggest that is if they enforced a 16:9 aspect ratio by letterboxing, which they did not.

If you want, I'll even take shots of other 4:3 resolution, and even 16:10, shots to further test.

If you think it would help, you're welcome to. But I think that a bigger help would be if you were to try to find a way to replicate Tanuki and Ez's shots, without modifying the FOV settings. Tanuki is attempting to replicate yours.

You know... I'm done with these forums. There's no point in even proving a point because nothing is ever right except what you say is right. There's no proof of anything that the game was designed or intended in any way for 4:3, yet there's a bunch of articles and evidence that shows 16:9 was at least intended for the 360, yet you still stick with 4:3 when there's no proof of any kind at all. You are no better with your assumptions on 4:3. You need to open your mind to other possibilities. At least I've managed to link to articles and show comparisons/similarities between the console and PC versions.

All you ever do is make counter-points that aren't any better.



I base everything on conventional logic, while you clearly base yours on religious logic. I take screenshots and compare, I find articles where they mention their primary development platform was the Xbox 360, etc. All you do is come around saying, “Well you can't prove that it's not 4:3.â€

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

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

Try reading my posts again. My points seemed to have completely gone over your head. For instance, if a rational thinker understood what I meant by this:

It's not even obvious that they had an intended aspect ratio at all

he would not have responded with this:

There's no proof of anything that the game was designed or intended in any way for 4:3

or this:

You are no better with your assumptions on 4:3.

I base everything on conventional logic

Going by your condescending and oversimplified cartoon you do not. A cartoon that describes your logic might involve the guy pulling out a baseball and going "Here's a baseball that belongs to my retarded little brother Jimmy! And my mommy loves him more than me, so I must have a baseball too!"

I take screenshots and compare,

As did Tanuki.

I find articles where they mention their primary development platform was the Xbox 360,

And I'm still waiting for you to explain what this proves.

Dopefish,

I have no idea how this thread was derailed so much, or what why you are so bent out of shape.

Let's do this like a geometry proof. They use "givens" and "proves." I'll give you that 16:9 Xbox 360 was the aspect ratio they intended as the default. So, here goes...

Given:
* Fallout 3 is a "modern" game, developed on widescreens
* Specifically, Fallout 3 was designed for the "Xbox crowd" in mind
* Fallout 3 was developed with 16:9 as the "default" or "native" aspect

Prove:
* The game behaves properly when comparing 16:9 to 4:3, 16:10 and Surround
* The HUD behaves properly in the same instances
* The "2D" or "static" screens behave properly in the same instances
* The game behaves in a consistent manner.

Again, we can start with 16:9 as the default. The issue is how does 16:9 compare to other aspects, and does it do so properly. Does 16:10 behave as we would expect? Does TH2Go behave as we would expect?

The reality is that our continuum used to have three points. 4:3 on one end, and 16:9/16:10 on the other end (very close together). Now, 16:9/16:10 are in the middle, with TH and Wide TH on the other end. If 16:9 is the "starting point" (rather than 4:3), then how does the game compare between widescreen ratios and TH ratios?

We know Fallout 3 had issues. The game performs admirably, but it isn't perfect.

I take the blame for this as much as anyone. But please everyone, no more here. It just confuses people.

I do not know why the pics are different but I no longer care. There is enough info for someone to make any adjustments as they see fit.