Proof that Bioshock's FOV was no ... design decision ... ?

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 27 Aug 2007, 16:02

Thanks buddy ... :D

aggies11 · Post by **aggies11** » 27 Aug 2007, 16:14

I just want to remind people one thing that I brought up in another thread. (After much discussion, I am under the belief that it still holds true).

Just because a game is "Vert-" doesn't necessarily mean WS is "broke".

You have to examine it on a game-by-game basis.

What do I mean? When they go the "Vert-/Vert+" route, they have two choices. Make WS work appropriately and "break" 4:3, OR make 4:3 work appropriately and break WS.

It looks like Bioshock went with the second, as 4:3 has the more tolerable FOV.

It's then possible that the other games (MOHA, Gears, etc) went the other route. Basically WS is "fine", and 4:3 has a zoomed out FOV. Unfortunately I'm not someone sensitive enough to be able to make that determination myself, but I figured it is worth pointing out.

From the initial discussions about Bioshock, it was not simply the Vert- that was the problem, BUT that 4:3 had a "good/appropriate" FOV and the Vert- to WS changed it into something uncomfortable/inappropriate.

Again, based on past discussion, I believe the above is accurate. (I of course am human, and could be misunderstanding things. ;) )

So just because other games have Vert- doesn't necessarily mean that their WS is of the messed up Bioshock kind.

Aggies

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 27 Aug 2007, 16:23

... So just because other games have Vert- doesn't necessarily mean that their WS is of the messed up Bioshock kind....

... it does ... if it is vert- and the game devs don't put it right ... :wink:

Apple · Post by **Apple** » 27 Aug 2007, 16:59

Hmmm, having some digi cam troubles at the moment.

Hopefully wont be to long until I have the pics up...

Post by **Ryom** » 27 Aug 2007, 18:17

Horz+ keeps the game playable on all wide formats (even 3:1 triplehead), that's why we consider it to be the only real default. Devs should use Horz+, set a sane FOV for 5:4 aspect, then expand horziontally as needed. Everyone is catered to then (all aspects remain playable), instead of throwing dual and triplehead users out to the wolves.

There may be no real widescreen, but there is a real sane default :)

Sweetz · Post by **Sweetz** » 27 Aug 2007, 21:25

[quote]... So just because other games have Vert- doesn't necessarily mean that their WS is of the messed up Bioshock kind....

... it does ... if it is vert- and the game devs don't put it right ... :wink:
I do think we need to think about this a bit more though. Our stance on vert- being wrong is that games were developed in 4:3 and that the amount of visible vertical space at 4:3 is what the developers intended. However, I think now we well and truly do have games being developed in widescreen as the intention and really it's 4:3 users that are getting the incorrect amount of vertical space.

The real problem with Bioshock, is that regardless of whether or not they specifically chose that FOV for widescreen, it was just too low. In hindsight I think we should have focused on that more than that (and the fact that it wasn't editable), rather trying to say their widescreen implementation was wrong; there probably would have been a lot less conflict over the issue.

Now let me clarify that I 100% agree that hor+, and using different FOVs based on the aspect to keep the vertical space constant, is the correct widescreen implementation. What I'm saying is that we can longer automatically make the assumption that if a game is vert-, it's the widescreen FOV that is wrong -- it may well be that the 4:3 implementation is wrong and that they're getting too much vertical space. E.g. I know Gabbo made it a joke, but these days it could really be a matter of vert+, which would be an incorrect 4:3 implementation (with hor- being the correct 4:3 implementation).

Apple · Post by **Apple** » 28 Aug 2007, 13:23

Here we go guys...

Gears of War over VGA.

16:9 1920x1080(1080p)

4:3 640x480(480p)

This was the exact same spot, I didn't move or look around. I just seems the camera in-game is a little different at that point. Its looking more downward in the 4:3 shot.

In the next two shots you can see the in-game camera was almost exactly the same. It slightly bobs.

16:9 1920x1080(1080p)

4:3 640x480(480p)

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 28 Aug 2007, 13:29

Great stuff Apple ... !
We have to let Epic know we are not happy about this ... widescreen vert- thing ...
Please post your displeasure ... (as I say in a civil manor please) ...

http://forums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?p=24977926&posted=1#post24977926

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 28 Aug 2007, 13:33

What I'm saying is that we can longer automatically make the assumption that if a game is vert-, it's the widescreen FOV that is wrong -- ...

We can if it feels wrong in widescreen ... as it does in Bioshock and Medal Of Honor: Airborne ... and many others.

Frag Maniac · Post by **Frag Maniac** » 28 Aug 2007, 14:09

I don't think you could have set it up properly ... everything is the same distance for me using the hack ...

Don't think so, I followed the readme and tried diferent settings. It might be that the video card I'm using causes it to scale differently. I have an old X800XT.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 28 Aug 2007, 14:21

Very odd ...
I can't see that a card could could cause that but I could be wrong.
As you can see from the screenshot everything lines up correctly ... distances are the same ... hmmm ... very odd.
Maybe it is something to do with the way you were running widescreen on a 4:3 ... dunno ...

BTW ... they fixed widescreen for Stalker in a patch (just in case you didn't know).

aggies11 · Post by **aggies11** » 28 Aug 2007, 14:34

[quote]What I'm saying is that we can longer automatically make the assumption that if a game is vert-, it's the widescreen FOV that is wrong -- ...

We can if it feels wrong in widescreen ... as it does in Bioshock and Medal Of Honor: Airborne ... and many others.

Yes, but then thats no longer automatically assuming, thats actually investigating it :p

Stevedroid perfectly captures what I was trying to say.

So for a game like GoW, which is Vert- (or 4:3 Vert+, depending on your perspective ;) ), you have to play it and decide if the WS view feels like the "wrong"/uncomfortable FOV.

ie. If you had never saw 4:3 GoW, would there still be a problem with the WS version?

(The answer obviously can be yes. However you can't assume either way, without first investigating/experiencing)

Aggies

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 28 Aug 2007, 14:50

[quote][quote]What I'm saying is that we can longer automatically make the assumption that if a game is vert-, it's the widescreen FOV that is wrong -- ...

We can if it feels wrong in widescreen ... as it does in Bioshock and Medal Of Honor: Airborne ... and many others.

Yes, but then thats no longer automatically assuming, thats actually investigating it :p... lol ... of course ... you have to experience it to know ... and I usually know instantly as it feels wrong as it did with Bioshock and why I posted.

Don't get me wrong I understand what you guys are saying ...

Another consideration is ...
Vert- implementation of widescreen does not allow for extreme FOVs such as TripleHead or Dual screens and if a game was designed in TripleHead using this method of widescreen (Vert-) think how silly it would be in 4:3 ... :mrgreen:

BlueMak · Post by **BlueMak** » 28 Aug 2007, 14:53

I just loaded GoW. Frankly it doesn't bother me as it did with Bioshock. It doesn't feel bad for me.

BUT, don't take this that I like the game, because I don't.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 28 Aug 2007, 14:59

It probably doesn't feel so bad as it is 3rd person ...

Apple · Post by **Apple** » 28 Aug 2007, 16:35

I would say Gears feels alright the way it is, I didn't even notice this until I checked. It feels like I can see to much using 4:3, because I'm used to 16:9.

But other games, especially FPS need to be Hor+. Theres no ifs or buts about it....

Sweetz · Post by **Sweetz** » 28 Aug 2007, 21:22

Having played a lot of GoW the current FOV feels right to me at widescreen. Looking at the 4:3 shots the game looks too zoomed out. I think in the case of GoWs case it is a matter of 4:3 vert+ and it's 4:3 users that are getting the incorrect "experience."

As said, vert- (or vert+ as the case may be) is definitely wrong regardless, but I think from this point forward we're going to have to consider if it's widescreen users or 4:3 users that are getting the short of end of the stick.

BlueMak · Post by **BlueMak** » 28 Aug 2007, 21:44

Having played a lot of GoW the current FOV feels right to me at widescreen. Looking at the 4:3 shots the game looks too zoomed out. I think in the case of GoWs case it is a matter of 4:3 vert+ and it's 4:3 users that are getting the incorrect "experience."

As said, vert- (or vert+ as the case may be) is definitely wrong regardless, but I think from this point forward we're going to have to consider if it's widescreen users or 4:3 users that are getting the short of end of the stick.

No one is asking the 4:3 users to get anything less than they would in the first place. This isn't about 4:3 getting less, it is for WS to get more. It's an endless supply of FOV and pixels. When a game supports properly WS screens, it is not stealing pixels from 4:3. This isn't the state budget, this is pixels. Both CAN be winners. Don't fall for the propaganda, we are equals.

Post by **skipclarke** » 28 Aug 2007, 22:48

What I'm saying is that we can longer automatically make the assumption that if a game is vert-, it's the widescreen FOV that is wrong -- ...

If developers really, Really, Really, REALLY, REALLY wanted players to have "specific" experience and have players "see" the world in a specific way (with the Widescreen being correct) then they should present the game anamorphic, and letterbox for 4:3 screens.

Now, obviously this may cause an uproar. But, the devs could say, "This is how we designed the game, if you want to fill your screen, buy an HDTV. This is how we want you to see the game. If you don't want to, then check this "cropped" option and let it crop the sides. But know, you aren't following our vision."

I find it funny that they are saying that widescreen is their "true" vision, when the majority of owners, both console and PC, do not have widescreen displays. So, that means, all of their hard work to create this "perfect" experience is being wasted.

I'd say the "best" option is do widescreen how you want, and then offer 4:3 users letterboxing or cropping. Don't a ton of people buy widescreen DVDs, and watch them letterboxed on their "regular" TVs?

Sectus · Post by **Sectus** » 28 Aug 2007, 23:54

I think I've got a pretty good reasoning for how the UE3 engine deals with widescreen.

Now then, people are used to that 4:3 being the "default" resolution you compare to. So that aspect ratios which are wider gets a wider fov, and aspect ratios which are taller gets a taller fov. This all makes sense, right?

I don't think the UE3 engine always makes wider aspect ratios have the same horizontal fov. I just think they made 16:9 the new "default". So that wider aspect ratios than 16:9 will have wider fov (triple heads for instance). And that taller aspect ratios (4:3 for instance) have a taller fov.

When you think about it that way, it makes perfect sense.

Widescreen Gaming Forum