Bioshock: artistic vision - or not as the case may be

[Sweetz]

now this makes me worry, doest the pc version atleast support 1360X768?

Yes it "supports" widescreen resolutions just fine in that you can run the game with them (I run at 1360x768 myself - and the demo was fine), it's just that it's vert- instead of hor+.

Looks like the game's default FOV is 75 which feels really zoomed in for widescreen, especially since I'm using to playing at 90-120 for other games.

I've tracked down where the graphics settings are kept, but so far no luck changing the FOV. The typical unreal settings of "DesiredFOV" / "DefaultFOV" aren't working.

I've also tried getting the console up and running and no luck with that either.

[Essobie]

What's really disturbing about your screenshots is that you are getting more FPS in 4:3 than you are in widescreen (given that you are getting more information in 4:3 in this case).

Is that just an unlucky screenshot in FRAPS, or is it constantly better in 4:3 on your system?

I just registered here since, while I have a Dell 2001FP (4:3 monitor), I much more prefer a slightly wider FOV in most games. Since nVidia's drivers allow me to completely turn off scaling, I get 1600x900 pasted in the center of my monitor at pixel per pixel accuracy. Yes, I have bars, but you get used to them pretty fast.

Keep up the good work here. I hope that 2K gives us what we really want. I'd hate to be "forced" to play in 4:3 on a new game when I just got used to playing widescreen!

[Sweetz]

What's really disturbing about your screenshots is that you are getting more FPS in 4:3 than you are in widescreen (given that you are getting more information in 4:3 in this case).

Is that just an unlucky screenshot in FRAPS, or is it constantly better in 4:3 on your system?

Note that he could have been using a widescreen resolution much higher than what he ran at 4:3. E.g. the widescreen shot might have been captured at 1680x1050, while the 4:3 shot could have been at 1024x768. (higher res outweighs any small amount of polys/textures excluded by vert-)

He just appropriately scaled the widescreen shot from it's original resolution to fit within the 4:3 shot.

[DaFox]

Edit: N/M

[JohnnyWakko]

What's really disturbing....

:welcome

Hey Essobie. Pop into the hello section and say gday.

[dpratt]

I went ahead and posted this thread to Digg - this needs to be spread out to a wider audience so that we have a better chance of 2K noticing and fixing this awful behavior. Everybody go here and digg the link

http://digg.com/pc_games/Bioshock_has_a_HUGE_widescreen_display_bug_on_both_Xbox_and_PC

[Apple]

I just checked, and the Xbox 360 demo is infact Vert- compared to the 4:3 shot paddy posted, I can tell buy the hand. The wrist on the players character isn't seen when played on the 360 in 16:9 widescreen.

Now here is the argument.... Is the 360 version the real way its ment to be played and a 4:3 resolution on the PC is a FOV overshot? I honestly don't know what to think.....

[Essobie]

Note that he could have been using a widescreen resolution much higher than what he ran at 4:3. E.g. the widescreen shot might have been captured at 1680x1050, while the 4:3 shot could have been at 1024x768. (higher res outweighs any small amount of polys/textures excluded by vert-)

He just appropriately scaled the widescreen shot from it's original resolution to fit within the 4:3 shot.

True... but the test I did ended up with images basically identical to the OP's findings. Good ole PrtScn works just as good as FRAPS sometimes.

[Gabbo]

Yep. I can confirmwhat apple is saying. Xbox 360 version is the same VERT- that the PC version is. I guess that is how they envisioned the widescreen support.

Jetsonic... you have no idea what we are talking about. Let the adults talk.

[Paddy the Wak]

If you run 4:3 res on the 360 do you not get more view top and bottom ?

[squ1zzy]

Do we need a FOV for this? Or would the full version be fixed?

[Samulies]

this is terrible! lets get a fix for this up right away guys! I have this pre-ordered! >.<

[Apple]

If you run 4:3 res on the 360 do you not get more view top and bottom ?

Using the 360 VGA cable at 1280x1024 the game was running in 16:9 letterboxed, it was Vert- as normal.

Then I tested 640x480(480p) in normal(4:3) mode and it was like the PC demo, there was more FOV at the top and bottom. I could see the characters wrist etc..

So its Vert- in 16:9 compared to 4:3 on the 360 as well. But you'd think a game designed to run in 16:9 would be running correctly..... So the 4:3 overshot is still in question.

[DaFox]

[quote]If you run 4:3 res on the 360 do you not get more view top and bottom ?

Using the 360 VGA cable at 1280x1024 the game was running in 16:9 letterboxed, it was Vert- as normal.

Then I tested 640x480(480p) in normal(4:3) mode and it was like the PC demo, there was more FOV at the top and bottom. I could see the characters wrist etc..

So its Vert- in 16:9 compared to 4:3 on the 360 as well. But you'd think a game designed to run in 16:9 would be running correctly..... So the 4:3 overshot is still in question.

But does the game running in 16:9/16:10 feel too zoomed in? I heard a few people complaining that it felt like that.

[upstart]

[quote][quote]If you run 4:3 res on the 360 do you not get more view top and bottom ?

Using the 360 VGA cable at 1280x1024 the game was running in 16:9 letterboxed, it was Vert- as normal.

Then I tested 640x480(480p) in normal(4:3) mode and it was like the PC demo, there was more FOV at the top and bottom. I could see the characters wrist etc..

So its Vert- in 16:9 compared to 4:3 on the 360 as well. But you'd think a game designed to run in 16:9 would be running correctly..... So the 4:3 overshot is still in question.

But does the game running in 16:9/16:10 feel too zoomed in? I heard a few people complaining that it felt like that.

It always does. Even with STALKER, before I even knew about the aspect ratio cutting the top and bottom off, I felt I was playing a game with binoculars on. Just had to come to this forum to support my suspicion.

It really sucks that devs do this to us hardcore gamers in this day and age. It means the true game experience won't come until the 3rd or 4th patch, usually. A sad thing for us hardcore gamers who are usually the ones pre-ordering the CE :(

[Paradigm Shifter]

I do find it amusing that the thread on the 2k forums has attracted absolutely no Moderator or 2k Games attention, but has attracted the attention of the trolls who seem to think that anyone with a better system than them doesn't have the right to use it to it's fullest... :lol:

[codmate]

I do find it amusing that the thread on the 2k forums has attracted absolutely no Moderator or 2k Games attention, but has attracted the attention of the trolls who seem to think that anyone with a better system than them doesn't have the right to use it to it's fullest... :lol:

Indeed!

I made a posting on Eurogamer.net and got nothing but abuse for dawing this issue to people's attention :?

It seems that those who don't care about widescreen gaming *hate* those of us that do for some bizzarre reason :shock:

[Paradigm Shifter]

It's mostly (or it seems this way to me) because until recently, widescreen gaming was the realm of the "elite" due to it being so expensive. It still is, in relative terms - to power 1920x1200, you need some serious GPU power - and those whiny little 14-year-olds who still haven't hit puberty yet get angry and start slinging insults around when someone has a better gaming experience than them. ;) :lol:

[Paddy the Wak]

Do we need a FOV for this? Or would the full version be fixed?

Yes mate ... I very much doubt that the full version will be fixed any time soon ...
They may fix it in a patch but who knows ... :?

[BlueMak]

Hmm, well, Rainbow Six Vegas was fixed with a patch, but first 2K Boston has to accept that there is a problem before they fix it. I don't know about others, but the game is less appealing to me by the hour because of this.