Widescreen Gaming Forum

[quote][quote][quote]Thanks cancerman... That makes it the 3rd time someone has posted that in this thread.

my bad; i guess i did not read through those pages where it was posted. I will remove it ASAP :)
Ah well, that can happen when there are so many postings in a single thread. It's hard to read everything so double posting occurs fast. No worries.

I said move along!

Yeah I realize that the thread is getting out of hand in regards to length. I didn't mean to come off as a dick.

no worries. Its all good :D

Thank you guys for bringing this to the attention of the wider gaming community. It's very good that many news sites have picked up on this, hopefully 2K Games will now get some negative publicity and they will fix this in an official patch.

More importantly, I hope that other games properly support widescreen from the start. It's completely unacceptable for a game to come out in 2007, to be called an official "Games for Windows", and to not have widescreen support.

Heck, maybe we can start pressuring MS to rectify their WS specifications for GfW so that cropping is not an option.

Part of the problem seems to be that some people are defining "wide screen support" based not upon how well the resolution of the screen is employed in support of the artistic and gameplay goals of a game's designers, but instead by a nonsensical comparison of how much stuff you see on the sides compared to a 4:3 display.

Yeah I agree 100%. There's no inherent reason wide format should display a larger FOV than 4:3; this is purely an opinion and a design choice.

Granted I think the FOV in bioshock is a bit low and dizzyness inducing, but all this nonsense about 4:3 cropping is just silly.

The rest of your post was on target too. Thanks for explaining the issue thoroughly.

I'm by no means someone who understands ALL of the inner workings of wide screen displays vs. 4:3, but I understand enough to be able to comment on it and that response is unbelievable. Apparently the developers of this game have a different definition of wide screen than, I don't know, every other person in history? It's like they're essentially changing how they think it should be on the fly, for their particular "vision," or whatever.

I mean maybe I'm just an idiot and someone can kindly tell me so if I am, but I thought one of, if not the absolute MAIN benefit of a wide screen experience is to be able to see MORE of the movie/show/game? Whether it's horizontal or vertical, is really not the point. But one way or the other, if I'm playing/watching something on a wide screen display, my expectation is to be able to see just as much as a 4:3 screen, and even more so on the sides. I understand in this game, that notion is essentially reversed, we're seeing less on the top and bottom. But the fundamental argument is unchanged in that the entire POINT of presenting something in wide screen is for people to be able to see more of what is being presented. To say "that's the way it was intended," I mean what is that? If that's the way you "intended" it, then you shouldn't be claiming from the beginning that it's true wide screen implementation, because it is just not.

I seriously can't believe that response. I mean talk about total blindness and unwillingness to admit a problem.

There is widescreen support and there is widescreen support.

2K do the second kind, I think...

[quote][quote]2K intentionally gives 4:3 screens more visual information

Part of the problem seems to be that some people are defining "wide screen support" based not upon how well the resolution of the screen is employed in support of the artistic and gameplay goals of a game's designers, but instead by a nonsensical comparison of how much stuff you see on the sides compared to a 4:3 display.

Yeah I agree 100%. There's no inherent reason wide format should display a larger FOV than 4:3; this is purely an opinion and a design choice.

Granted I think the FOV in bioshock is a bit low and dizzyness inducing, but all this nonsense about 4:3 cropping is just silly.

That's fine, you can have your opinion.

For me, HL2 is a shining example of how widescreen support is properly done. 2K's mistake is using the same horizontal FOV for the 16:9 aspect ratio as 4:3. Valve doesn't do this, nor do other developers that, IMO, have a better understanding of the issue.


That said, I'll still buy Bioshock. I am encouraged 2K is looking into allowing the user to change the FOV. However, its hard for me not view the "extending the vertical FOV for 4:3 displays" is spin for cropping for 16:9 resolutions.

A major misunderstanding going around the web is that Bioshock does NOT support widescreens.

It DOES support widescreens, but it is HOW it supports widescreens that has some upset.

Do you like my usage of CAPS?

You're easily becoming one of my favorites on the forum Gabbo :oops: .

hehe.

Just played through the demo. The mouse feels lest fubar with my settings :). Thx for the hack :D .

I hope there will be tweaks to fix fps a bit more. I drop to 30fps in firefights, I don't like that :P. (8800gtx )

I have an 8800 gts and the frame rate is silky smooth (1680x1050 all settings maxed except aa). Athlon 64 single core 4000, 2 megs 3200 ram ... What system do you have?

Haha, I love 2K's response, it's almost poetic. A true argument of semantics.

To paraphrase:

"It's not that WS sees less than 4:3, it's that 4:3 sees more than WS". Because those are two totally different things... :P


I can understand their reasoning though.

They wanted a WS (wide horizontally) game experience. They didn't want to cut down on the horizontal view for 4:3. This is like watching WS movies on a 4:3 display. To maintain the whole horizontal view, you will lose some vertical space (black bars on top and bottom).

However they didn't want black bars to "mar" the 4:3 experience. And, unlike a movie which is fixed on film, a game can give you any viewpoint, viewing angle, etc it wants. So they effectively just "removed" the black bars from top and bottom and let you see what was behind on 4:3. This is the "unecessary" extra info that 4:3 sees, that isn't really part of the "true game experience". So WS isn't missing anything, it's just that 4:3 has some extra "useless" visual area only to avoid the dreaded black bars. But the whole game was designed/balanced without it, so WS users shouldn't miss it :P

A bad PR move on 2k's part, as whether this was your intention or not, it's a dangerous game of semantics that will only serve to irritate their users more.

The only solution at this point is to give the end user the freedom to choose what "view" they want, regardless of what the "true design" of the game was.

Aggies

Haha, I love 2K's response, it's almost poetic. A true argument of semantics.

To paraphrase:

"It's not that WS sees less than 4:3, it's that 4:3 sees more than WS". Because those are two totally different things... :P


I can understand their reasoning though.

They wanted a WS (wide horizontally) game experience. They didn't want to cut down on the horizontal view for 4:3. This is like watching WS movies on a 4:3 display. To maintain the whole horizontal view, you will lose some vertical space (black bars on top and bottom).

However they didn't want black bars to "mar" the 4:3 experience. And, unlike a movie which is fixed on film, a game can give you any viewpoint, viewing angle, etc it wants. So they effectively just "removed" the black bars from top and bottom and let you see what was behind on 4:3. This is the "unecessary" extra info that 4:3 sees, that isn't really part of the "true game experience". So WS isn't missing anything, it's just that 4:3 has some extra "useless" visual area only to avoid the dreaded black bars. But the whole game was designed/balanced without it, so WS users shouldn't miss it :P

A bad PR move on 2k's part, as whether this was your intention or not, it's a dangerous game of semantics that will only serve to irritate their users more.

The only solution at this point is to give the end user the freedom to choose what "view" they want, regardless of what the "true design" of the game was.

Aggies

Well stated.

Your post makes almost too much sense. It's like you stated everything I have been trying to convey, only you did it much better. The only difference being that they consider "unnecessary extra content" on the top and bottom of the screen for 4:3 to not negatively impact gameplay as they envisioned it, but why extra "content" on the sides would?

Wait.. you see. I can't even form sentences anymore.

It is completely about semantics. It can be argued from both sides ad nauseam. I now worry that as more games are developed for widescreen as the base, will more games start being known as VERT+ for the 4:3 users?

Oh! The humanity!

Oh and...

:welcome

I ask you this..what is the the ratio of widescreen to 4:# in their offices...if they say they developed it in widescreen:


http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/irrationalvisit1.html

Mister trrll, I hope one day you buy a wide monitor and will one day understand, that is all I have to say.

I have a wide monitor. At least insofar as the demo goes, I think that the "claustrophobic" FOV chosen works extremely well in maintaining the atmosphere of the game. I wouldn't want to play the 4:3 version where everything that matters is smaller and lower resolution--I find it a much less dramatic and exciting display. I think the extra image added at the top and bottom in 4:3 actually impairs the experience, but is probably the best that can be achieved with that aspect ratio, as it is less unsightly than letterboxing and does not harm the gameplay as cropping off the sides would.

If the developers put in a wide-FOV patch to comfort the "I-gotta-see-more-stuff-on-the-sides" zealots, I just hope they retain the option to play the game as it was originally designed.

I ask you this..what is the the ratio of widescreen to 4:# in their offices...if they say they developed it in widescreen:


http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/irrationalvisit1.html

LOL Priceless!

It's just lies on top of lies on top of lies... next they'll completely back peddle... and say "We never meant for the game to be truly widescreen." I bet you one hundred dollaroonies!

You know, whatever 2k says, I think this has been a textbook example of 'massive overreaction.'

I agree with the sensible posters in here — the game is awesome and was worth all the money I spent (I can't say that about a lot of games). At the same time, the game should have been released hor+, not vert-.

But really, that's about where the sensibilities end. The people that canceled their pre-orders are, to put it bluntly, pretty stupid. Depriving yourself of a great game because *gasp* it doesn't allow you to see 20% more on the sides is like saying, "Hey, that Porsche doesn't have side mirrors that let you see all 180 degrees behind you." — That's a stupid reason not to buy it if you were going to before you knew about it.

I find it amusing that people will not buy a game, not because it's doesn't work or has really crappy gameplay, but because they have to move the camera a bit more to see more. Heaven forbid someone make a game that lets 4:3 users an advantage - because truth be told, 2kgames knows that that's what it is, even if they claim they optimized it for widescreen first and then 'un-letterboxed' for the 4:3 users. Maybe they did; it doesn't make a difference.

But thousands of diggs and hundreds of complaints about it not being 'proper' widescreen? Why aren't people complaining more about it not unlocking properly, video driver problems causing BSODs, or other actual -issues-?

Now that the game has been hotfixed by Racer_S, would you newcomers please shut up about how this "destroys your faith in 2k" and how they're all "idiots for not properly supporting widescreen". They made a choice, and I see no reason why they should stick by it. If they say they planned for widescreen first, and then chose to expand top and bottom so 4:3 users wouldn't letterbox, why is that so unbelievable? The end result is the same: 16:9 shows up as a 'crop' of 4:3, but it can't hurt to at least have a little bit of trust in them.

Good for them for being on vacation. I would too, if I had just spent the last months making a game that tops the metacritic list of games.

Here's a hint: buy the game, play the game, and then come back and play it again with the patch Racer has so nicely provided us. If you tell me it made a grave difference in gameplay, tell me how and we can go from there. If you haven't played the game yet and are saying how it's wrecks it — pardon the language — shut the hell up.

If the developers put in a wide-FOV patch to comfort the "I-gotta-see-more-stuff-on-the-sides" zealots, I just hope they retain the option to play the game as it was originally designed.

Not being funny but with an attitude like that towards widescreen gamers/gaming why on earth are you registered in a widescreen gaming forum, and not just any WSG forum but probably the most famous one on a site that strives for correct WS implementation in games.

That's just... weird.

re: Gabbo

Thanks, I certainly tried.


One thing to keep in mind though, (although I'm not sure if it's the case for Bioshock, and I have no idea how you could find out) is consider the following:

Take a traditional game with true WS support. You have the regular 4:3 view, then you have the WS view, which is the 4:3 one, but with more horizontal viewspace. All is well with the world, the game has "true" widescreen support.

Now take the same game, keep WS the way it is "working 100%", but modify the 4:3 experience. "Zoom" out the 4:3 experience so that is has the same horizontal viewing area as the working WS. To maintain proper aspects, you also have to zoom vertically, so the 4:3 view now has a greater viewing area (zoomed out).

Has anything with the WS changed? Nope, so WS still works perfectly 100%, was not altered. So WS people should be just as happy as they were before, as nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is a different way of doing 4:3. But let the 4:3 people worry about that.

Now what if this hypothetical game, is in fact Bioshock?

Obviously I can't say whether this is the case or not, but it does beg the interesting question. What if Bioshock's WS is fine, it's just that the 4:3 implementation is buggered up. Is the definition of WS absolute on it's own, or does it only exist relative to the 4:3 implementation? Does WS only mean "wider than 4:3, no matter how they do 4:3".

My whole point is, take a game that has 100% working widescreen, that everyone is happy with, and then change their 4:3 implementation. Does that automatically mean that WS no longer works? Or is it seperate.

I'd imagine that maybe you can find this out by looking at a perfect circle rendered in the game, and seeing if how changes in FOV alter it's perceived shape. But thinking too hard about that hurts my head, so I will refrain ;)

Aggies

For me, HL2 is a shining example of how widescreen support is properly done. 2K's mistake is using the same horizontal FOV for the 16:9 aspect ratio as 4:3. Valve doesn't do this, nor do other developers that, IMO, have a better understanding of the issue.

Every game is different. Bioshock is not HL2. 2K might well make different design choices for another game. A truly creative developer will not have a fixed policy like "always make the FOV wider on widescreen," but will consider each games esthetic and gameplay goals independently and choose the FOV that works best for each screen's aspect ratio.

like saying, "Hey, that Porsche doesn't have side mirrors that let you see all 180 degrees behind you."

I think it would be a more accurate representation if the porsche had a giant magnified windscreen instead of the usual glass, some people would hate it, while others might not even notice, still it would be nice to have the option to have both! :D

Haha, I love 2K's response, it's almost poetic. A true argument of semantics.

To paraphrase:

"It's not that WS sees less than 4:3, it's that 4:3 sees more than WS". Because those are two totally different things... :P

It actually means, that they developed Bioshock as widescreen game and then they added some extra FOV for 4:3 users! So we (wide screens owners) can be happy and they (4:3 screens users) can be happy as well! :P