Widescreen Gaming Forum

The only way to know for sure for a graded report would be a direct developer comment which is pretty hard to obtain.

Developer comments aren't a dependable source either. 2K games claimed this about BioShock. And then they fixed it.

Otherwise it's perpetuating a mentality that Vert- = always wrong, and that's really not necessarily true.

When is it not wrong? If 16:9 is "correct" in a vert - game, that would mean 16:10 and 4:3 have too much vertical FOV and are therefore incorrect.

There must be at least one notable game that has Vert- behavior, where 16:9 is commonly agreed to be correct and proper and plays right and looks good all the same, and thus no changes (Hor+ hacks) should be used if you're using a single widescreen

The burden of proof for such a claim would lie with you.

Yeah I think it needs to go in there somewhere. Otherwise it's perpetuating a mentality that Vert- = always wrong, and that's really not necessarily true.

Your argument is that if 16:9 is the baseline, then "Vert-" in comparison to 4:3 shouldn't be considered wrong. You may be correct. However, 16:9 should have a wider FOV that 16:10. And with Vert- it doesn't. And, Surround or Eyefinity should have a wider FOV than 16:9. A Vert- game is seriously crippled in TH/EF.

You are correct that when we started developed the grading system, 4:3 was considered the baseline and that we were comparing how it "scaled up" to 16:9. I would accept your argument that 16:9 could be considered a new baseline and can be a better indication of what the developer intended. However, it should still react properly when "scaled up" from this new baseline to multi-monitor. A Vert- games does not do this.

The grading system encompasses far more than the single comparison you are drawing between 4:3 and 16:9. Don't forget that many PC games are on 16:10 monitors, and multi-monitor is becoming more popular. A fixed vertical FOV and scaling horizontal FOV solves all problems. And yes, this thread is Deja Vu all over again.

Otherwise it's perpetuating a mentality that Vert- = always wrong, and that's really not necessarily true.

When is it not wrong? If 16:9 is "correct" in a vert - game, that would mean 16:10 and 4:3 have too much vertical FOV and are therefore incorrect.

Kind of agree:

First, anything other than the intended aspect will be "incorrect" insofar as it's not the baseline intended aspect (and related FOV). Unless anamorphic, all aspects have to have more or less FOV compared to each other. Just because 4:3 and 16:10 in that scenario have more than 16:9, doesn't mean they'd need a Hor+ fix to have less than 16:9. They can't have the same FOV as intended, so why NOT give them more. They are totally entitled to have the intended FOV and then some, rather than less than the intended FOV. It's the exact reverse of why this website was created when games were baseline 4:3. Why should 16:10 and wider users get less than 4:3? We discover methods and hacks to give ourselves more instead. It's still never "correct" because it's never 4:3.

In the case of a Vert- game already being correct at 16:9, because of the common thinking here and the way solutions and DRs are written, 16:9 users would believe they should be hacking their game to Hor+ and thus result in giving themselves more FOV than intended. There's nothing to tell them "hey wait, this game's baseline IS 16:9, you have nothing to change"

There must be at least one notable game that has Vert- behavior, where 16:9 is commonly agreed to be correct and proper and plays right and looks good all the same, and thus no changes (Hor+ hacks) should be used if you're using a single widescreen

The burden of proof for such a claim would lie with you.

Supreme Commander? Mass Effect?



I'll respond to Ibrin soon. And sorry I wasn't around for the last round of discussion on this topic, apparently.

Supreme Commander? Mass Effect?

I'll respond to Ibrin soon. And sorry I wasn't around for the last round of discussion on this topic, apparently.

They 16:9 on those may have been the FOV that the developer wanted. But, Surround/Eyefinity was fuckered. Our goal is to serve both communities - WS and TH/EF. You didn't miss much in the last go-round on this, as it's basically repeating itself. The grading system isn't going to change. It can take into account "Vert+ in 4:3 with "Hor+ in TH/EF". It does so with Anamorphic in 4:3 and Hor+ in TH/EF.

I for one don't have the time or the energy to go through this discussion again. It got bad enough (at least for me) that I considered just pulling the plug on the whole WSGF. We got it settled then, and I can't rehash it again. If you'll excuse me, I have other areas of the site to work on...

Your argument is that if 16:9 is the baseline, then "Vert-" in comparison to 4:3 shouldn't be considered wrong. You may be correct. However, 16:9 should have a wider FOV that 16:10. And with Vert- it doesn't. And, Surround or Eyefinity should have a wider FOV than 16:9. A Vert- game is seriously crippled in TH/EF.

"shouldn't be considered wrong..." for 16:9 and narrower aspects.

Why should wider aspects have a wider FOV? Why can't taller aspects have a taller FOV?

I agree that regardless of whether the baseline is 4:3 or 16:9, that multiwide users suffer with Vert-, as they're losing some of the intended FOV.

But current thinking is that everyone wider than 4:3 suffers with Vert-, and that's only true if 4:3 is the baseline.

You are correct that when we started developed the grading system, 4:3 was considered the baseline and that we were comparing how it "scaled up" to 16:9. I would accept your argument that 16:9 could be considered a new baseline and can be a better indication of what the developer intended. However, it should still react properly when "scaled up" from this new baseline to multi-monitor. A Vert- games does not do this.

Again, why is Hor+ considered "proper"? That's the crux of my thread. I think Vert- could be just as good for all aspects at and narrower than the baseline. Vert- is clearly not proper for aspects wider than the baseline.

The grading system encompasses far more than the single comparison you are drawing between 4:3 and 16:9. Don't forget that many PC games are on 16:10 monitors, and multi-monitor is becoming more popular. A fixed vertical FOV and scaling horizontal FOV solves all problems. And yes, this thread is Deja Vu all over again.

I'm only focusing on that comparison because that's the only place there is a problem. Multi-wide users need Hor+ in pretty much every situation, because the baseline aspect is always smaller than their aspect and they should be gaining FOV vs having to lose it.

Grading reflects this already. However, everything else seems to suggest that 16:9 and narrower users are also losing something and need to fix things if the game is Vert-. That's not necessarily true, and the site literature should be updated to acknowledge that.

And on Vert- games where as-is FOV on 16:9 is correct, people should be made aware there is nothing they should do (unless they have a multi monitor wide setup).

Without that notice, you have users "correcting" behavior where it shouldn't be, and giving themselves more FOV than intended, when they already had 100%+ of the intended FOV

Myself for example, from this site was taught that Vert- = bad/dumb/stupid/etc. but since I'm merely a 16:10 owner and now understand the concept of a baseline aspect. I realise it doesnt necessarily mean any better or worse than Hor+.

You say a fixed vFOV and expanding hFOV fixes all problems. If the game was that way already, then sure. But if the game is Vert-, then actually, it creates problems for users at, or below the baseline aspect. They're correcting a non existent issue and thus creating one.

They 16:9 on those may have been the FOV that the developer wanted. But, Surround/Eyefinity was fuckered. Our goal is to serve both communities - WS and TH/EF. You didn't miss much in the last go-round on this, as it's basically repeating itself. The grading system isn't going to change. It can take into account "Vert+ in 4:3 with "Hor+ in TH/EF". It does so with Anamorphic in 4:3 and Hor+ in TH/EF.

I for one don't have the time or the energy to go through this discussion again. It got bad enough (at least for me) that I considered just pulling the plug on the whole WSGF. We got it settled then, and I can't rehash it again. If you'll excuse me, I have other areas of the site to work on...

Great job with the site so far, far and away. One of the best resources on the net. I don't want the grading system to change.

I just want two things

1. It acknowledged and the thinking to change that for Single-screen users Vert- does not necessarily mean they're losing anything they're supposed to see, and shouldn't necessarily search to make the game Hor+

2. The addition of a console games widescreen behavior list/database. Please see my other thread for the work I already started.

Why should wider aspects have a wider FOV? Why can't taller aspects have a taller FOV?

Because having a taller FOV is not useful. More sky and more ground does not help - it just screws up the frame's focus.

But current thinking is that everyone wider than 4:3 suffers with Vert-, and that's only true if 4:3 is the baseline.

If you assume 16:9 is the baseline, then 4:3 and 16:10 users get too much vertical FOV. And if you assume 4:3 is the baseline, then everyone else gets too little. Either way, vert - means SOMEBODY gets the wrong amount of vertical FOV, and therefore suffers.

Why should wider aspects have a wider FOV? Why can't taller aspects have a taller FOV?

Because having a taller FOV is not useful. More sky and more ground does not help - it just screws up the frame's focus.

It's not always ground and sky. see: Supreme Commander. That also opens up all sorts of other arguements, like that any hFOV past ~120 is also not "useful", because human FOV isn't that wide.

But current thinking is that everyone wider than 4:3 suffers with Vert-, and that's only true if 4:3 is the baseline.

If you assume 16:9 is the baseline, then 4:3 and 16:10 users get too much vertical FOV. And if you assume 4:3 is the baseline, then everyone else gets too little. Either way, vert - means SOMEBODY gets the wrong amount of vertical FOV, and therefore suffers.

?...but Hor+ means the same thing (here's your same sentence edited for a Hor+ game): If you assume 4:3 is the baseline, then 16:10 and wider get "too much" horizontal FOV. And if you assume 16:9 is the baseline, then 16:10 and everything taller get "too little". Either way, Hor+ means somebody gets the wrong amount of horizontal FOV, and therefore suffers.

I'd say you only suffer when you get less than the baseline's FOV. ie. Anyone wider than the baseline on a Vert- game. or Anyone taller than the baseline on a Hor+ game. Getting more isn't suffering. It's the better of the two choices. Are surround users suffering because Hor+ gives them more than the baseline FOV? Or is that "too much" like you said?

Here is how you justify Horizontal scaling.

There is no such thing as vertical height, just horizontal.

For example 4:3 and 16:9
Lets scale 4:3 up to the lowest comparable resolution resulting in 12:9

Why should 4:3 have any more vertical height over 16:9?

It is NOT taller.

Granted these are just arbitrary comparisons and you could make one that is the exact opposite. But its pretty clear to see how 4:3 and 16:9 stack up. 1600x1200 vs 1920x1200.
Honestly, what you want is pixel based because that is the only way that is basically perfect, and its how most applications sans 3D games work, for good reason.

Here is how you justify Horizontal scaling.

There is no such thing as vertical height, just horizontal.

For example 4:3 and 16:9
Lets scale 4:3 up to the lowest comparable resolution resulting in 12:9

Why should 4:3 have any more vertical height over 16:9?

It is NOT taller.

Granted these are just arbitrary comparisons and you could make one that is the exact opposite. But its pretty clear to see how 4:3 and 16:9 stack up. 1600x1200 vs 1920x1200.
Honestly, what you want is pixel based because that is the only way that is basically perfect, and its how most applications sans 3D games work, for good reason.

Why'd you "scale up" to 12:9? Why not the equally "comparable" 16:12, to use your comparison? Then it is taller.

And please don't tell me what I want. Especially when it's something I've never mentioned. Pixel based? What? I said what I want very clearly the post to Ibrin.

*fetches some popcorn and gummy bears to watch the argument*

It's not always ground and sky. see: Supreme Commander.

In that case, 16:9 is a poor baseline aspect ratio. The additional vertical FOV *does* provide an advantage in 4:3, and therefore, that vertical FOV should be present in all aspect ratios.

That also opens up all sorts of other arguements, like that any hFOV past ~120 is also not "useful", because human FOV isn't that wide.

If your eyes can see the entire monitor setup, then your hFOV does not exceed human vision.

If you assume 4:3 is the baseline, then 16:10 and wider get "too much" horizontal FOV.

More hFOV is better. More vFOV is not better. You can't have "too much" horizontal FOV the way you can have too much vFOV.

And if you assume 16:9 is the baseline, then 16:10 and everything taller get "too little".

Yes, that's true. That's why we account for anamorphic behavior - it's a mechanism that ensures sub-16:9 AR users get sufficient hFOV without getting too much vFOV.

Getting more isn't suffering.

Getting more vFOV is suffering. The extra vFOV serves no purpose but to ruin the frame's focus. This is why "open matte" movies are shown letterboxed on DVDs even though they could remove the letterboxing and show the entire frame.

Are surround users suffering because Hor+ gives them more than the baseline FOV? Or is that "too much" like you said?

Why are you giving me two identical options? It's neither. Surround users gain the benefits of additional hFOV over the baseline. Being able to see more stuff on your sides is always helpful, and it doesn't detract from the focus, because you are focusing on the center portion of the monitor anyway.

Great job with the site so far, far and away. One of the best resources on the net. I don't want the grading system to change.

I just want two things

1. It acknowledged and the thinking to change that for Single-screen users Vert- does not necessarily mean they're losing anything they're supposed to see, and shouldn't necessarily search to make the game Hor+

2. The addition of a console games widescreen behavior list/database. Please see my other thread for the work I already started.

1 - You are perfectly entitled to offer this opinion when you do a Detailed Report. You could also offer this as your opinion when in reply to someone's Detailed Report. There have been plenty of instances where people have said, "16:9 is Vert- compared to 4:3, however 16:9 FOV feels correct/proper/intended". There are still plenty of games where 16:9 is the baseline, but players see the FOV as too small. This generally plays out on games coded for consoles and PCs, as the average PC user sits much closer to their screen than a console user. See the debate in the Borderlands topics. Even if the game is Hor+, users may still feel that the FOV is restrictive for PC users.

2 - I thought about doing this very thing at one point. Problem is manpower. The monitor list was over six months out of date when I updated it around New Years. I haven't added a wiki game page to the MGL in well over six months. We shut down the Notebook List due to usage and lack of resources to update it, and we stopped adding individual monitor pages. I'm doing to be doing essentially the same for the comparison screenshot section. You can count the number of people who are active in making Wiki updates on one hand, and still have enough fingers left to signal the barman at your favorite pub. I'm the only one that does the benchmarking and reviews, and I've yet to have one ready when the embargo date was lifted (so it would hit at the same time as the big boys). There is no way I could conceive of taking on more tasks in the site, when the ones we have aren't up to date.

Why should wider aspects have a wider FOV? Why can't taller aspects have a taller FOV?

a 4:3 display is NOT a 'taller' aspect, man get it already will ya. Just cos a certain SIZED 4:3 monitor may be physically 'taller' than the same SIZED (diagnal) WS display doesn't mean it's got a TALLER aspect FFS.

Do the math with the numbers, 16:10 and 4:3.. they are like algebra or variables. They make no allowance for physic size/height ONLY the ratio of width to height.

You do realise that the 100% correct comparison of WS to 4:3 Is not to take 2 displays of the same diagnol? a 17" std display is NOT the equal of a 17" WS display. The equal is a ws with the same physical VERTICAL measurement as the STD display.

It's all about the SHAPE of the display. Look at the things will ya. One is quite obviously less wide than the other. It's not 'taller'. When the companies set out to make new displays, (and at the time inline more with what was happening in cinema and movie theatres) they made the displays aspect ratio to be more stretched along the horizontal to suit the way Humans see.

They did NOT sit around and design 'shorter' displays (height wise) which would be totally stupid thing to do, but would have been needed if your so called 'tall displays' were to exist. They didn't say 'hey I've got a good idea, lets take a load of standard displays and chop 3 inches off the top and bottom and call them 'short screens'' - your curious 'taller' aspected display can NOT exist because the design of widescreen displays was for WIDTH enhancement not for HEIGHT supression. And the thread linked to by someone else (the guy with the vertical eyes) is the only answer you need as to why it's classed as 'widescreen' - it was deemed that way because it was an IMPROVEMENT on the current STD displays, not as a handicap!

This created immersion and comfort. You are completely blinkered (and incorrect) in your comparisons about WS vs STD (forget all about Bioshock or any game even you need to actually realise what you are saying about displays before you can understand the more advanced problem).

Sure you can find a STD display that is 'as wide' as a widescreen display and then that STD display WILL have physically more height (a good bit). That does NOT make it a 'taller' display, because that display is LACKING the width, it is a completely different ratio of width to height. Remember the actual size of the display is irrlevent and not for comparison. It's only about the shape of the rectangle (viewport). If you did some rudimentary 3D coding this would become so obvious to you, you'd realise how stupid it is to try and find evidence to support your whacko theory.

Anyway, even if a game was designed to be 'ideal' on 16:9 it should always adjust/scale correctly to other aspect ratios to be called 'proper widescreen' (or even proper standard screen). If it fucks up on a single device, be it 4:3, triple head, or WS then it has failed to implement aspect ratio correction properly and THAT is the fault we try to get fixed.

By designing it for 'one perfect aspect ratio' and not allowing it to adjust properly is very bad design for so many reasons, and yes it's been discussed over and over and over till we are all blue in the face. Stop countering everyone with nonsense arguments and go do some research if you don't grasp the concept of it being about the ratio of width to height and not about a direct comparison between one type of display and another.

If the SHAPE of a display changes then the viewing frustum must change to match, in bioshock (whether 'designed for 16:9' or not) it doesn't match when faced with different displays, it keeps whatever it's baseline was (I personally belive that to be 4:3 regardless of the shit that 2k feed us, just look how good it looks in 4:3.. no problems at all.. no revealing of 'shouldn't be seen' parts of the hands/drill etc).

Lastly, if in a flying pig filled world of a icy hell they really had intended the 16:9 FOV (and said 'screw every other type of display') they STILL showed very bad design skills by setting it so low.


I'm guessing the guy will counter. f-it I'm sick of this each year, why do we have to continually 'teach' the noobs who won't listen? Do your own research like we all had to, rather than think you have a case. All the proving of your silly theory rests with you not me/us/masses of 3D coding books/industry standards/widescreen display makers, so please find a game that fits your strange concept that displays perfectly in ALL aspect ratios, you won't find one because it's impossible. It either displays perfectly it all aspect ratios without camera anomilies (zoom in/out/hand crop etc) or it doesn't. And if it DOES it means the aspect ratio code is working correctly and taking into account the SHAPE of the display (based on the resolution). Anything else is a bodge, stop thinking that the game developers are right/honest all the time. Surely the stupidity of 2K in particular has been proven by now?

The way I see it is that almost all games nowadays are developed for 16:9. Fewer and fewer are designed for 4:3 since it's not a requirement for the 360 (only 16:9 is a requirement). I still think the behavior should be that they scale horizontally for all aspect-ratios, or make it anamorphic.

BioShock 2 is vert+ for 16:10 and 4:3 since the baseline is 16:9. With the recent patch, 4:3 and 16:10 are now hor- (which is correct). This is the proper way to handle it in my opinion. 16:9 is what they targeted and they specifically wanted a vertical FOV of 75, so the other aspect-ratios now follow that.

Ideally, for a PC game, the developer should provide settings to set the resolution, how many monitors there are, pixel aspect-ratio, aspect-ratio, FOV, etc. This gives the user all the options they need. They're really not that hard to implement, either. There definitely needs to be limits set, like how CoD4/5 was locked to a vertical FOV of 65-80, and Source-based games are 75-90.

There are problems that arise from this, though. Games that use UE3 or deferred rendering (more and more games are doing this) often calculate lighting, shading, and other effects based on the visible viewing area.

An example is BioShock 2:






Notice how the lighting changes between all three screenshots. This is most noticeable on the leaves to the left, although all the entire scene shading changes.

Letting the aspect-ratio go too low or too high might result in some really awkward lighting. This is just one technical problem that would need to be overcome.

I have no doubt BioShock 2, Mass Effect 2, Borderlands and others were designed for 16:9, but on PC the FOV makes it feel too cramped at 16:9, even if it was designed for that ratio. It would be a relatively simple thing to do to add 10-20 to the FOV value for the PC version but developers don't bother, either because they don't care about the PC version being the best it can be or because it increases testing costs and such.

This is true. All console games are developed for 16:9. There's no way around it. 16:9 is a requirement (as well as 4xMSAA, but this has since been lifted as of March 2009) and 4:3 is 100% optional. If the developer wants to ignore 4:3 altogether, then they just don't add support for it and the 360 itself will automatically scale it down and add bars without anything extra needed from developers. If they do choose to support 4:3, then don't expect it to be handled correctly, either, since it's likely given little effort.

I just think it often happens that people see 4:3 with more FOV than 16:9, and they jump to thinking 16:9 is missing information information that is intended, instead of considering that 4:3 is gaining more information than intended.

Truth.




Basically, if it's developed for the 360 or PS3, it's designed for 16:9.

[quote]I just think it often happens that people see 4:3 with more FOV than 16:9, and they jump to thinking 16:9 is missing information information that is intended, instead of considering that 4:3 is gaining more information than intended.

Truth.

Basically, if it's developed for the 360 or PS3, it's designed for 16:9.

So then would you go one step further and agree with me that if you're playing a baseline 16:9 game on a 16:9 monitor, you shouldn't be making Hor+ changes just because it's Vert-? Or that if you're on 4:3 or 16:10, people should be aware they'll be taking away total FOV after such a change?

That's all I've ever tried to point out with this thread.

What I say is that if the game is designed for 16:9, then that's what the resulting aspect-ratios should be based around. If it's a game that scales vertically, then people need to know that 16:9 is what the intended default is and that 4:3 is actually the incorrect view. Currently, people think widescreen users are getting ripped off just because the game scales vertically instead of horizontally. Even Kotaku's report on BioShock 2 made it seem like widescreen users were getting the short end of the stick when it's actually 4:3 users who were getting more than they were supposed to.

Yes, the games should scale horizontally and this shouldn't be a problem, but that's not often the case. I think that people should know that if they're playing a game like BioShock 2 on a 16:9 screen that they are playing what the developer intended. This may not be what the user likes but that's not the point. The point is to define a baseline that says, "This is what's intended. If you prefer something else then that's your prerogative."

In the case of BioShock 2, I think it's important that 4:3 and 16:10 players need to know that post-patch, they'll be seeing less vertically and horizontally than before.

Well I've won over one person (or dopefish always felt that way). 8)

People are screwing themselves by adding unnecessary FOV (they play on baseline, and the hack increases baseline's FOV), or taking away FOV when they might not want to (narrower than baseline users), because of this mentality that Vert- should always be corrected to Hor+.

Ibrin feels this should be highlighted in the DR, but I'm not sure enough users go that deep or realise a game's baseline is just as important to know these days before going about looking for a Hor+ change. I didn't, until recently.

Well I've won over one person (or dopefish always felt that way). 8)

You're just dopefish 2.0.

We have been over this a handful of times. You're not getting anywhere.

Dopefish 2.0 with an annoyingly cute kitten avatar so i don't get angry until i walk away from my PC.

I don't understand the resistance to what Dopefish is saying, it's 100% common sense.

I can see not wanting to change the grading system because it would be a massive PITA and also there is no way to completely certify a game's intended ratio, but still, what he is saying makes 100% complete sense and no one can really argue otherwise.

Bioshock 2 in 16:9 with an FOV of 75 is exactly how the developers want you to play the game.