Widescreen Gaming Forum

First off, I should start by saying that I’m on you’re side. I am a bit of a videophile, and play Bioshock on a Sony 60â€

:shock:

Me fail math? That's unpossible!

What you are saying makes sense, and this would be the ideal situation for the sake of "fairness" for things like online multiplayer etc.

To answer the question why do we feel entitled to an extra 33%?

Well, because we like it? We think it looks the best.

Basically, "If it feels good, do it."


Now I realize you may have wanted a more techincal explanation here at the WSGF, but I am in a weird mood today and this is the best I can do.


Love,

Gabbo

Oh...

:welcome

Thanks for the welcome. Nice forum you have here.

I'm not sure I need a technical explanation - "because we like it" works just fine. And in that respect, I definitely agree.

But reading the main thread here on bioshock, as well as perusing the various rants on 2k's forums, I saw a lot of technical arguments about why it should be hor+ as opposed to ver- (sorry if my nomenclature is incorrect, but you get the point) - that to me didn't sound accurate. And given all the ranting over the last couple days, I though I better come with numbers if I were to disagree. Actually, I'm not even disagreeing, more just trying to explore and better understand the issue.

So in short, my apologies for the math, but I hope you understand why its there.

I'm not sure I need a technical explanation - "because we like it" works just fine. And in that respect, I definitely agree.

There are so many emotions getting in the way of the facts (just look at kotaku), that it's easy for threads to derail into flame fests. People are so angry that "their game" is being unfairly criticized or afraid that their 4:3 gameplay will change that they jump to incorrect conclusions. We love the game too and also don't want 4:3 gameplay to change (unless someone makes a choice to change their settings).

The truth is, I don't think people can truly appreciate the difference unless they actually played the game in both modes. WS with the original 75 degree FOV and WS with the optimal FOV setting for their display. I guarantee you if you did that and took a poll, many of those people would have a different opinion. It's easier to see it and believe it than it is to believe the math.

I'm not sure I need a technical explanation - "because we like it" works just fine. And in that respect, I definitely agree.

...

The truth is, I don't think people can truly appreciate the difference unless they actually played the game in both modes. WS with the original 75 degree POV and WS with the optimal FOV setting for their display. I guarantee you if you did that and took a poll, many of those people would have a different opinion. It's easier to see it and believe it than it is to believe the math.

As I play on the 360, so I can’t experience both formats. Still, I personally feel as though the FOV is too tight. And generally, especially in multiplayer games, I prefer as much FOV as I can get.

And, any type of fairness argument, like mine, falls apart in a single player environment. It’s not a zero-sum game; our gain of a few degrees in horizontal FOV is not a loss to 4:3 gamers.

But for the sake of argument, assume that fairness is the goal. In that case I’m not sure you can prove a point by taking a pole of only those individuals who benefit from the change. Of course you and I will saying more FOV is better, we benefit from that change. It looks better (IMO), it’s easier, you can see more etc.

But polling just widescreen gamers is like polling coal producers about whether pollution restrictions should be eased. You’re not exactly getting an accurate representation of what’s good for the community as a whole.

well its also that we have come to expect H+ as the 'defacto' correct wide screen format for PC gaming

look at games like Hl2, Doom3, and Oblivion that do it right

even CnC3 does it right (need to do a review of that if theres not one here some time)

But polling just widescreen gamers is like polling coal producers about whether pollution restrictions should be eased. You’re not exactly getting an accurate representation of what’s good for the community as a whole.

I understand that. I was thinking more along the lines of sitting a person down at a WS display to try it out and not just WS owners. If we can agree that it looks better that's one thing. If they don't like it because they wished they owned a WS display, that's another.

BTW: I've been a 20" 1600x1200 display user for several years. I just got a 24" 1920x1200 display a couple weeks ago. Even if I didn't own a WS display, I would still have not had a problem with giving WS users what they've come to expect and see in other games (like HL2). It's really no different than the desire to make the most of the latest and greatest video cards in new games, even if I don't own the card.. because someday I might.

I haven't given it an absolute ton of thought, but I'm not sure why you are using the "constant 1000pixel diagonal" for both displays?

It's been a long day, and thinking too hard makes the head hurt at this point, but I upgraded from a 19" 5:4 to 22" 16:10WS, so that my new monitor is pretty much my old one, but with extra added onto the sides. I can then run the game at 4:3 letter boxed to simulate my old display, and also in 16:10 WS.

My initial instinct is that forcing a constant 1000pixel diagonal is akin to some measure of physical size (eg 19" 4:3 vs 19" WS), which I'm not sure is relevant, as it's really only aspect ratio and FOV that factor in?

It could just be me, but I'd definitely appreciate more insight into the reasoning behind your methods :)

Aggies

I haven't given it an absolute ton of thought, but I'm not sure why you are using the "constant 1000pixel diagonal" for both displays?

It's been a long day, and thinking too hard makes the head hurt at this point, but I upgraded from a 19" 5:4 to 22" 16:10WS, so that my new monitor is pretty much my old one, but with extra added onto the sides. I can then run the game at 4:3 letter boxed to simulate my old display, and also in 16:10 WS.

My initial instinct is that forcing a constant 1000pixel diagonal is akin to some measure of physical size (eg 19" 4:3 vs 19" WS), which I'm not sure is relevant, as it's really only aspect ratio and FOV that factor in?

It could just be me, but I'd definitely appreciate more insight into the reasoning behind your methods :)

Aggies

1000 was just picked for easy math it could be any size

The problem is that vert- doesn't just make you loose out on seeing some of the environment, it alters the perceived perspective. It makes things looked zoomed in vs 4:3. E.g. here's our friend Bioshock:



16:9 looks very much zoomed in compared to 4:3, the environment looks a lot closer. With true hor+, one aspect doesn't looked any more zoomed in than other. In the case of hor+, it is purely a matter of some extra environment being visible; you appear to be the same distance from the environemnt, you just see more of it.

I would argue that the level of perceived zoom/perspective has a much, much greater impact on the game experience than simply seeing more or less of environment. If I were a developer and I wanted to keep the vision of my game as consistant as possible, the perspective/perceived zoom would be way more important to me than a couple extra virtual feet of scenery being visible at the sides.

I mean assume that 2K is being honest that they chose the really tiny FOV for widescreen to give the game a crampt/claustrophobic feeling aren't they then compromising the experience for 4:3 players by not reducing the FOV by an appropriate amount for them? Doesn't 4:3 seem less crampt compare to widescreen? Definitely. The problem is that the "intended" FOV is just too crampt, to the point where it's so zoomed it seems unnatural. 75 degrees is already smaller than most games at 4:3, so at 16:9 it's really bad.

Anyway point is that hor+ ensures the most consistent play experience for all aspect ratios.

I haven't given it an absolute ton of thought, but I'm not sure why you are using the "constant 1000pixel diagonal" for both displays?

It's been a long day, and thinking too hard makes the head hurt at this point, but I upgraded from a 19" 5:4 to 22" 16:10WS, so that my new monitor is pretty much my old one, but with extra added onto the sides. I can then run the game at 4:3 letter boxed to simulate my old display, and also in 16:10 WS.

My initial instinct is that forcing a constant 1000pixel diagonal is akin to some measure of physical size (eg 19" 4:3 vs 19" WS), which I'm not sure is relevant, as it's really only aspect ratio and FOV that factor in?

It could just be me, but I'd definitely appreciate more insight into the reasoning behind your methods :)

Aggies

I chose to equate the sets based on diagonal dimension, but there are definitely other options. As another poster stated, the choice of 1000 was done just for easy math. It could have been any number, and any measure of length (e.g. 42 inches).

You need some metric to scale the screens. Otherwise, the calculation would have to consider the actual physical dimensions of the screen, and not just the ratio of width to height.

The problem is that there are a limited number of characteristics to describe a rectangle, none of which are perfect. You could choose to scale based on screed width, height, area, or diagonal. I chose diagonal because it is the de facto standard for measuring screen size. But again, you are correct. There are other options.

The problem is that vert- doesn't just make you loose out on seeing some of the environment, it alters the perceived perspective. It makes things looked zoomed in vs 4:3. E.g. here's our friend Bioshock:
…
I would argue that the level of perceived zoom/perspective has a much, much greater impact on the game experience than simply seeing more or less of environment. If I were a developer and I wanted to keep the vision of my game as consistant as possible, the perspective/perceived zoom would be way more important to me than a couple extra virtual feet of scenery being visible at the sides.

Good post, I completely agree that the level of perceived zoon is the core issue. With all of the variables of screen ratios, screen sizes and viewing distance, the only way to achieve any type of standardization is by basing FOV on what is necessary to achieve perceived distance to an object.

Unfortunately, I think your post restates the main misunderstanding in these arguments. The picture you post takes a 16:9 image and compares it to a 4:3 image of equal vertical dimension. It creates the illusion that the 16:9 image is more “zoomed in,â€

The problem is that vert- doesn't just make you loose out on seeing some of the environment, it alters the perceived perspective.

Strictly speaking, that is not correct. The perspective is identical in the two images you show. To see this, consider widescreen and 4:3 displays of the same physical screen width (i.e. a small widescreen monitor vs. a very large 4:3 one). In that case, every object seen on the wide screen will be seen on the 4:3 screen, and it will be exactly the same size. Moreover, all of the angles on the two screens (the perspective) will be identical.

There will be only two differences: The 4:3 screen will show some more stuff at the top and bottom, and the objects in the 4:3 display will be lower resolution, less detailed, because they have less pixels.

[quote]
Unfortunately, I think your post restates the main misunderstanding in these arguments. The picture you post takes a 16:9 image and compares it to a 4:3 image of equal vertical dimension. It creates the illusion that the 16:9 image is more “zoomed in,â€

I'll say one thing that is in favour of hor+ for sure.

In RTS games you see less of the map with vert-.

I know it annoys the hell out of me in Warhammer DOW, especially since that game is a little to zoomed in to start with (in 4:3) IMO.

If I was playing online I'd go with the pillarbox, rather than see less of the map than my opponent!