"Vert+" discussion on Mass Effect and Console Game

Sweetz · Post by **Sweetz** » 31 May 2008, 03:13

This one I think could be safely called vert+ :)

Every piece of promo media for the game was 16:9. I wouldn't make a stink about a game that was clearly designed for widescreen first and just happens to add more vertical space for taller resolutions.

Post by **The_cranky_hermit** » 31 May 2008, 04:05

This one I think could be safely called vert+

Only if you're playing 4:3. If you're playing it in widescreen, it's vert -. Same with every other vert - game in existence.

Every piece of promo media for the game was 16:9.

This doesn't mean anything about how the game was designed - it just means that EA chose to use widescreen mode when recording gameplay for advertisements.

I wouldn't make a stink about a game that was clearly designed for widescreen first and just happens to add more vertical space for taller resolutions.

If you have a particular FOV frame in mind, common sense says that you wouldn't deliberately "add more vertical space" for 75% of your audience.

Post by **skipclarke** » 31 May 2008, 06:21

If you have a particular FOV frame in mind, common sense says that you wouldn't deliberately "add more vertical space" for 75% of your audience.

You would make it anamorphic...

Sweetz · Post by **Sweetz** » 31 May 2008, 07:25

This doesn't mean anything about how the game was designed - it just means that EA chose to use widescreen mode when recording gameplay for advertisements.

Bioware makes their own promo videos and screenshots, and they've showed it in 16:9 at press event Bioware themselves hosted.

Sure I can't prove they designed for 16:9, but at the same time just cause it's vert- doesn't mean it wasn't designed primarily for 16:9 displays. If you think it was designed for 4:3, well you're entitled to your opinion, but given that it started life as a 360 game and given how they've showed it off, I think it's safe and logical to assume was designed first and foremost for 16:9 HDTVs, the 16:9 FOV is the intended FOV, and taller aspects are really seeing more than is intended.

If you have a particular FOV frame in mind, common sense says that you wouldn't deliberately "add more vertical space" for 75% of your audience.

Yeah you add black bars and then you get that 75% of the audience bitching about the black bars a la Assassin's Creed. It's certinaly possible that they didn't pay a lot of attention to the experience on taller displays just as many developers have ignored the experience on wider displays.

------

Anyway, chillax. I'm not asking for the grade to be changed. Even if it was designed first and foremost for 16:9, I still don't think that makes vert-/+ behavior ok. They should be adjusting the FOV based on the aspect. I'm just saying that widescreen users can make a fairly confident bet that they're not getting a diminished experience from what the developers intended. Certainly at the very least, you're not getting a diminished experience versus a person playing the 360 version on a 16:9 HDTV - which I'm sure would be what the developers would indicate as being the optimal way to play the game on that platform.

Post by **skipclarke** » 31 May 2008, 09:07

Stevedroid, I here what you're saying, but for me the classic example is still Bioshock. All during the development, 2K said that the game would properly support widescreens, and that widescreen owners would see more. The game comes out and it doesn't. They claim "artistic design," but then they release a patch to enable Hor+.

If that was *really* their artistic stance, make it anamorphic. Don't let me compromise your vision, as an artist. Have your vision, and be ready to take the heat from the 4:3 players. Insist that *they* conform to your vision, or suffer the potential diminished experience of black bars.

PS - I split this off as not to hijack the Mass Effect DR.

Sweetz · Post by **Sweetz** » 31 May 2008, 10:07

They released a patch after much griping and a rather amazing amount of press on the issue. Fulfilling a customer's wishes doesn't mean you were lying about your choice in the first place.

You know at the time I was right there with you guys in thinking they were full of it, but now I think it was naive and arrogant of us to assume that they were lying and that they specifically choose that FOV for 16:9. Who are we to tell them what they did and did not choose? It was a 360 game, they had to be play testing it on HDTVs throughout development.

The problem with BioShock is that even if they did specifically choose that FOV for 16:9, their choice sucked; it was just too small. As the arguments went on, I even suggested that we push this - that we stop (futily) trying to convince people it was the "wrong" widescreen implementation and instead focus on saying that the FOV was just uncomfortably small at widescreen resolutions regardless of what we thought correct behavior should be and why shouldn't we be able to chance it since it's a common option in many other FPSes.

With Mass Effect and Gears of War, the FOV at 16:9 feels ok.

Again, I am not saying that vert- or vert+ is acceptable behavior. I 100% agree the the FOV should either change based on the aspect, or the game should be fixed apsect (anamorphic).

I don't even really think the grading should be changed. I just sort of take issue with the fact that we're essentially saying that 16:9/16:10 is a "compromised" experience, when in my opinion it is not because I believe these games were developed first and foremost for 16:9.

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 31 May 2008, 12:10

They released a patch after much griping and a rather amazing amount of press on the issue. Fulfilling a customer's wishes doesn't mean you were lying about your choice in the first place.

No.

But the fact that Ken Levine was quoted in interview as saying "you will see more with widescreen" (I can't be bothered to try to find the quote) before the game was released, would seem to imply that you see more in widescreen.

Not less.

So if nothing else, he lied.

And then turned around and made out he didn't, and that we were the ogre in the forest and he was the innocent one who was being victimised.

If you don't mean something - don't say it.

Post by **Abram** » 31 May 2008, 12:43

They released a patch within a few weeks.

That's good enough for me.

Using the console, you can change the FOV a-la other UT3 games, but the result is the same. Broken ZOOM. The pistol still zooms a bit but the sniper rifle does not. (sure was nice to see it with 90Â° view, though)

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 31 May 2008, 13:18

Exactly Mr P ... it was after Ken Levine said "you will see more with widescreen" (in a post on the 2K forum after being asked about it ) that he then claimed that the view in widescreen (cut down) was "artistic design" ... lol ... he then winged about the bitter vitriol of the widescreen community ... :?

At the same time 2K thanked me in an email and complimented me on the WSGF and our community and they even sent Racer_S a 8800 for his work on the FOV tool.

@ mikeh ... how did you get the console to work ?

P-Storm · Post by **P-Storm** » 31 May 2008, 15:08

Paddy, search in the detailed report, i've read it there.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 31 May 2008, 15:32

Thank you ... I don't have the game yet ... just wondered as some guys were asking in the TripleHead thread.
Dunno if I will bother if this doesn't get fixed for Widescreen (if not TripleHead).

Post by **skipclarke** » 31 May 2008, 19:18

The best analogy is widescreen DVDs. The movies are obviously shot in widescreen, and are presented as such on a widescreen TV. For a 4:3 TV, most movie studios put out a combination disc that supports 4:3 and widescreen, or two separate versions of the movie.

While we obviously don't need two versions of a PC game, the dev/pub could make a similar statement. "We made this game in widescreen, and that is the default perspective offered (i.e., letterboxed on 4:3). But, if 4:3 users would rather maximize their pixels (rather than the aspect), then we offer either Vert+ or Hor-. I'm not sure how we would grade a game that offered anamorphic and Vert+ on 4:3. But, giving the anamorphic option on 4:3 would prove their original intent.

Sweetz · Post by **Sweetz** » 01 Jun 2008, 08:45

Exactly Mr P ... it was after Ken Levine said "you will see more with widescreen" (in a post on the 2K forum after being asked about it ) that he then claimed that the view in widescreen (cut down) was "artistic design" ... lol ... he then winged about the bitter vitriol of the widescreen community ... :?

It was an unfortunate situation to be sure.

However, even though their widescreen implementation was poor by our standards that still doesn't mean that the FOV at 16:9 wasn't the one they specifically chose. Just because they didn't enforce a common vertical FOV does not mean that they didn't develop the game primarily for 16:9.

As said, I thought the FOV was too small regardless and I'm glad we made the stink that we did (though I kind of feel bad for Ken Levine & crew since no other game got as much negative press for being vert-), but it is entirely possible that FOV was their choice at 16:9 and they just ignored taller resolutions just wider resolutions have been ignored previously.

Guys I've said multiple times that I 100% agree that a vert-/vert+ implementation is not good, you don't need to keep trying to convince me of this. All I'm saying is that how do we know that widescreen is the compromised experience as opposed to 4:3 being the compromised experience?

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 01 Jun 2008, 09:30

... that still doesn't mean that the FOV at 16:9 wasn't the one they specifically chose. Just because they didn't enforce a common vertical FOV does not mean that they didn't develop the game primarily for 16:9.

No one will ever convince me that, Bioshock was designed in widescreen with that FOV.

I think they just wanted to sell their game and said anything they thought the buying public would want to hear in order for them to buy it ...
The comments from KL and 2K were just that.

I have had this debate so many times now ... (that really is the last I will comment on it ... :lol:)

Psygnosis · Post by **Psygnosis** » 02 Jun 2008, 06:53

I think it would be amusing to see a developer release a Vert+ "fix" that added back bars to non-widescreen resolutions. :twisted:

fake edit: is that how Assassin's Creed works?

kyleb · Post by **kyleb** » 03 Jun 2008, 00:49

... that still doesn't mean that the FOV at 16:9 wasn't the one they specifically chose. Just because they didn't enforce a common vertical FOV does not mean that they didn't develop the game primarily for 16:9.
No one will ever convince me that, Bioshock was designed in widescreen with that FOV.

Why not? Surely you understand that it uses fairly standard FOV for a console based FPS game, even the ones which were the previous generation ones which were developed primarily for 4:3 output and properly adapted to support widescreen using Horz+?

I think they just wanted to sell their game and said anything they thought the buying public would want to hear in order for them to buy it ...
The comments from KL and 2K were just that.

Sure, that is obviously a big part of Levine's job. So people wanted to hear that BioShock would have a wider view for widecreen users and he told us it would.

However, the people actually making BioShock built the experience to include things like a splicer running by the edge of your view just as you walk into a room. If they had made the narrower aspect ratios Horz-, then 4:3 users would miss seeing such elements of the game. That is the difference we are seeing with current generation console games, they are build to run in widescreen and hence have to maintain a fixed horizontal FOV to allow narrower aspect ratio users to see the designers view, where as previously games were generally designed around a 4:3 view and required a fixed vertical FOV to allow wider aspect ratio users to have everything the designers intended us to see in our views.

BlueMak · Post by **BlueMak** » 03 Jun 2008, 01:25

[quote]
... that still doesn't mean that the FOV at 16:9 wasn't the one they specifically chose. Just because they didn't enforce a common vertical FOV does not mean that they didn't develop the game primarily for 16:9.
No one will ever convince me that, Bioshock was designed in widescreen with that FOV.

Why not? Surely you understand that it uses fairly standard FOV for a console based FPS game, even the ones which were the previous generation ones which were developed primarily for 4:3 output and properly adapted to support widescreen using Horz+?

I think they just wanted to sell their game and said anything they thought the buying public would want to hear in order for them to buy it ...
The comments from KL and 2K were just that.

Sure, that is obviously a big part of Levine's job. So people wanted to hear that BioShock would have a wider view for widecreen users and he told us it would.

However, the people actually making BioShock built the experience to include things like a splicer running by the edge of your view just as you walk into a room. If they had made the narrower aspect ratios Horz-, then 4:3 users would miss seeing such elements of the game. That is the difference we are seeing with current generation console games, they are build to run in widescreen and hence have to maintain a fixed horizontal FOV to allow narrower aspect ratio users to see the designers view, where as previously games were generally designed around a 4:3 view and required a fixed vertical FOV to allow wider aspect ratio users to have the designers intended us to in our views.

Are you serious? Are you high?

kyleb · Post by **kyleb** » 03 Jun 2008, 02:06

Do you actually have an argument against anything I said, or just the desire to feign one?

Post by **dopefish** » 03 Jun 2008, 03:20

I believe game designers are developing for widescreen, specifically 16:9 for the 360. Also, they love using low FOVs by default. Medal of Honor: Airborne, Call of Duty 4, and many others use a default FOV of 65. It's low, but it's what they chose. I am not going to sit here and say why they choose such a low FOV, but my opinion is that they choose such a low FOV so that you feel more "in the game." Using a lower FOV brings all the action closer to you and makes everything appear faster-paced and more action-oriented. When using a default FOV of 90, you kind of feel like you're sitting back from the action. I can easily try this out in PC FPS games and see the difference. However, I personally like a high FOV to sit back with because I can see more. This doesn't mean it's "right," though. This just means that the developer wants you to see and feel more action.

:)

Mesh · Post by **Mesh** » 03 Jun 2008, 03:42

If I were to take a guess it'd be they choose a lower fov to:

a - render less things on screen aka, easier to get better performance
b - need to reduce the viewport so the sub-720p rendering doesn't show as much
c - are putting in their respective 'artistic visions' which, by the looks of other art fields (such as a blank canvas being considered art) can be a good or a bad thing.
d - all of the above.

Widescreen Gaming Forum