trrll's justification of Bioshocks bad FOV

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 21 Sep 2007, 18:54

lol .... more proof that the FOV was no widescreen "design decision" or widescreen "artistic decision" ....

CONTAINS SPOILERS ... ... http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12007

trrll · Post by **trrll** » 22 Sep 2007, 01:47

I caught a bit of Ken Levine on a podcast talking about various things including the development of Bioshock. I thought that his comments about play testing, and also about some of the reactions to the game were particularly interesting:

"And it's kind of hard to speak of Bioshock without getting very--you know, like it was something--we spent 4 years making that game and that's a very long time, and to go through shipping a game, and I had not worked that hard on shipping a game since System Shock 2, and it's just--you just--you're there 18 hours a day and you go through--we focus tested it so much and people hated it for so long, and we got people to love it....and it was so much work, and so much love...."

"I experienced the loving caress and the angry backhand of the gaming community...You had some people with some very reasonable complaints who couldn't play the game because we had some problems...You can blame me, and you can blame--there were people who maybe screwed some things up--it wasn't by intention. And then you have sort of a level of vitriol in terms of some things, some other issues which weren't like objective screw-ups like that--like the widescreen issues for instance--that when they weren't resolved by three hours after launch--and I'm being literal here...literally 3 hours--people were after people's scalps, and I think that to some degree that may end up being counterproductive. But I understand, games are expensive, and people spend a lot of money on them....Part of the fun is participating in things, and for some people part of that fun is kicking the shit out of people online. Hey, I get paid a fair amount of money, people want to kick the shit out of me, you know, more power to them, I don't know if at the end of the day it's productive, I don't know if it means better games, but if it means some fun for them, I guess they're entitled to that if they've paid for the game."

BlueMak · Post by **BlueMak** » 22 Sep 2007, 01:56

Well, it's definetely more than 3 hours now, and guess what, still not fixed.

What an .

trrll · Post by **trrll** » 22 Sep 2007, 14:05

lol .... more proof that the FOV was no widescreen "design decision" or widescreen "artistic decision" ....

I hadn't read this thread before, because I didn't want to see any spoilers until I finished the game. But oddly enough, while playing this part of the game, I had exactly the opposite impression, thinking that it was perfectly matched to the widescreen FOV.

Elios · Post by **Elios** » 22 Sep 2007, 14:39

[quote]lol .... more proof that the FOV was no widescreen "design decision" or widescreen "artistic decision" ....

I hadn't read this thread before, because I didn't want to see any spoilers until I finished the game. But oddly enough, while playing this part of the game, I had exactly the opposite impression, thinking that it was perfectly matched to the widescreen FOV.

way to spin it seeing as how the porthole on the suit is ROUND not an oval
and that also kinda kill your window thing

and have you ever stuck your head in an old diving helmet
i can tell you its lot more like the fixed FOV the porthole is smaller then your head

also its the same way on the other big daddys porthole smaller then head
of the vert- to be right the porthole would take up 80% of the front of the helmet which it doesnt

trrll · Post by **trrll** » 22 Sep 2007, 20:03

way to spin it seeing as how the porthole on the suit is ROUND not an oval
and that also kinda kill your window thing

and have you ever stuck your head in an old diving helmet
i can tell you its lot more like the fixed FOV the porthole is smaller then your head

also its the same way on the other big daddys porthole smaller then head
of the vert- to be right the porthole would take up 80% of the front of the helmet which it doesnt

I thought that the Big Daddies looked like they were based on deep sea diving suits of the era, like this one

I've never seen one with an oval porthole. As i said, I hadn't even seen this argument when I played this section, and the FOV seemed exactly right to me.

Elios · Post by **Elios** » 23 Sep 2007, 00:46

http://www.gamepro.com/microsoft/xbox360/games/previews/images/54500-3.jpg

well the portholes for the ones in the game are much smaller

trrll · Post by **trrll** » 23 Sep 2007, 02:01

well the portholes for the ones in the game are much smaller

There aren't any rulers in the game, so it is hard to judge, but based on the apparent size of the Big Daddies, it looks to my eye as if the porthole is about the same size and the helmet is bigger.

tallscreencertified · Post by **tallscreencertified** » 24 Sep 2007, 12:12

I caught a bit of Ken Levine on a podcast talking about various things including the development of Bioshock. I thought that his comments about play testing, and also about some of the reactions to the game were particularly interesting: (snip)

It is quite saddening that it had come to puerile quipping on the part of many who saw the FOV as a problem, but I am surprised that he/they took it to heart. I know the long hours and schedules, ups and downs of making games so I can understand his view. But when there is a problem, no matter the significance, there will always be an element of venomous feedback, especially behind the anonymity of the internets. That's the way this series of tubes works. When you produce something, there will be critics. I just hope that the vitriolic pantywastes did not quell the voice of the mature folk who would like to see an option for the FOV.

Tanuki · Post by **Tanuki** » 05 Oct 2007, 16:48

What happened? Where did everyone go? 8)

Elios · Post by **Elios** » 05 Oct 2007, 20:06

no one cares any more i think
btw did it ever get patched?

BlueMak · Post by **BlueMak** » 05 Oct 2007, 20:33

No.
The troll was probably working for 2K.
I doubt you will see any patch fixing it any day soon. I believe we have hurt their ego. (or they are clueless on how to fix it).

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 05 Oct 2007, 21:32

no one cares any more i think
btw did it ever get patched?

Nope.

The reason this thread died, BTW, was that those that loved it, love it regardless. Those that didn't like it, didn't like it regardless... and certain individuals are good at saying something, and then stabbing you in the back in later interviews.

Hey, shit, why should I be surprised? :roll:

Elios · Post by **Elios** » 05 Oct 2007, 22:21

well in better news World in Conflict patch on monday so ill be re writing my review of it as it adds hor+

Tanuki · Post by **Tanuki** » 06 Oct 2007, 00:11

I am turning into a real thug here, aren't I? :oops:

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 06 Oct 2007, 11:33

I am turning into a real thug here, aren't I? :oops:

No, but you are spamming threads for no apparent reason...

Tanuki · Post by **Tanuki** » 06 Oct 2007, 23:07

I am not selling anything. 8)

Widescreen Gaming Forum