Widescreen Gaming Forum

so a game like Bioshock 2 makes me question the thinking it's always been around here that wider should always = more to see.

but if the developers are designing the view with a 16:9 aspect, does it matter what they do with narrower aspects? whether they decide to take away from the sides (what this site expects) or add to the top and bottom....

if we on our 16:10 and 16:9 monitors are getting what the developer intended, who's to say that the behaviour of the game at other resolutions is "wrong" ? maybe you see more in 4:3 like the inside of a helmet or more of the character's arm or weapon but you're not SUPPOSED to in the artistic vision of the developer, so who cares of 4:3 is vert+ to 16:9?


before when games were primarily were developed for 4:3, Vert- behaviour at 16:10/16:9 was considered "wrong" only because we as widescreen owners wanted advantages, not disadvantages to owning those expensive products. we wanted more FOV vs the alternative of less FOV over baseline 4:3.

now because of the consoles, many are being developed for 16:9, so aren't we already seeing what they want us to see? does FOV necessarily need to be added to 16:9 in Vert- cases?



Or is the issue that 16:9 on the PC doesn't even match what 16:9 on the 360 looks like for the same game? I'm under the impression it does match

so a game like Bioshock 2 makes me question the thinking it's always been around here that wider should always = more to see.

but if the developers are designing the view with a 16:9 aspect, does it matter what they do with narrower aspects? whether they decide to take away from the sides (what this site expects) or add to the top and bottom....

if we on our 16:10 and 16:9 monitors are getting what the developer intended, whose to say that the behaviour of the game at other resolutions is "wrong" ? maybe you see more in 4:3 like the inside of a helmet or more of the character's arm or weapon but you're not SUPPOSED to in the artistic vision of the developer, so who cares of 4:3 is vert+ to 16:9?


before when games were primarily were developed for 4:3, Vert- behaviour at 16:10/16:9 was considered "wrong" only because we as widescreen owners wanted advantages, not disadvantages to owning those expensive products

now because of the consoles, many are being developed for 16:9, so aren't we seeing what they want us to see?



Or is the issue that 16:9 on the PC doesn't even match what 16:9 on the 360 looks like for the same game?

I'm really sorry but none of what you said makes any sense. The horizontal FOV should be locked. (Have a slider or whatever if you must) but the reason why PC gamers tend to notice this more is because we sit that much closer to the screen so a vert- game just looks and feels terrible.

EDIT: ^^ Spaz moment here. Please ignore my stupidity.

you think the hoizontal FOV should be locked? you're not aware this site runs on the idea that the vertical FOV should be locked?

I'm asking why anyone thinks either FOV behavior "should" be anything when playing at aspects other than developer intended.





sidenote: in that sense, anamorphic seems to be an extremely "ideal" behavior in that nobody gets any more or any less view than anyone else, regardless of display aspect. what the developer intended for you to see, the end.

The 'ideal' solution fully supports all ARs with horizontal scaling. You can see why this is ideal when looking at very wide resolutions. As you can see with Bioshock2, the inclusion of vert- when the AR is increased results in an unplayable scenario.

Generally, a game is still playable on narrower screen ARs if you hor- it, as you simply remove peripheral vision. Reversing this and instead vert- games for wider ARs is a far, far greater hindrance.

IF designers were to select 16:9 as the base AR with an acceptable FOV and vert+ lower ARs and hor+ greater ARs, that would be, in my opinion only, difficult to really complain about.

1. I don't really know the bioshock 2 situation first hand. it just sounded like people complaining about 4:3 being vert+ ONLY because they've been taught it should always be Hor- vs widescreen.

2. your last comment is more what I'm raising. You propose a situation wherein the FOV on widescreen (16:9) is in the intended viewable area, and all other aspects are + solutions, where they see more. That's interesting, and might keep most people happy - although some 16:9ers might then complain they are seeing the least out of anyone.


But you bring up a perfect reason why I have my contention. you refer to "very wide resolutions" as being the problematic area in Vert- games. yet there is often such an uproar over those games that I have a hard time believing all the people complaining are on TH2GO or Eyefinity. Far and away they're just regular widescreen users that are upset that 4:3 users see more than them.

BUT, if they're seeing everything the developer intended (optimized for widescreen), who the hell cares if 4:3 sees more. By definition, 4:3 users are seeing TOO much. More then intended.

Where does this bee in the bonnet come from that says standard screens must see less? They ARE taller. Maybe they should see more on the top and bottom.

As long as I'm seeing AT LEAST everything the developer wanted me to on my widescreen, I'm happy. That means I'm only pissed about Vert- behavior, when the game was optimized for 4:3.

You seem to be taking the 'who the hell cares' approach too towards people with multi-monitor solutions. When people with certain (yet ever more popular) setups have their gaming experience practically ruined by poor implementation of AR handling, I, as well as others, wish to see this corrected.

The more understanding given to how various ARs should be handled and how this affects a whole range of users is good for all of us. It will help ensure our medium has a faster and more accessible transition into the future as tech changes and more obscure ARs may become the norm.

Our thirst for perfection is supporting the evolution of gaming for everyone 8)

You seem to be taking the 'who the hell cares' approach too towards people with multi-monitor solutions. When people with certain (yet ever more popular) setups have their gaming experience practically ruined by poor implementation of AR handling, I, as well as others, wish to see this corrected.

I already pointed out that by far the majority of people complaining all over the web about various games being Vert- are NOT multi monitor owners. What gives regular widescreen users the idea that 4:3 compare to them should always be Hor- and not Vert+ ?

And yes, if you have the setup the developer optimized for, then who the hell cares about other setups? I don't cry for people with onboard sound issues, I don't use it.

But for the record, I think all users should be able to see AT LEAST the full viewable area that was optimized for. Generally, that would be Hor+ for aspects beyond 16:9. And Vert+ for ones below. Or we can all see the same with anamorphic.

you think the hoizontal FOV should be locked? you're not aware this site runs on the idea that the vertical FOV should be locked?

Sorry was having a complete dumbass moment there. Yes you are correct.

Though i still don't see why how HL2/Crysis/ETQW etc. etc. isn't the "ideal" solution?

[quote]You seem to be taking the 'who the hell cares' approach too towards people with multi-monitor solutions. When people with certain (yet ever more popular) setups have their gaming experience practically ruined by poor implementation of AR handling, I, as well as others, wish to see this corrected.

I already pointed out that by far the majority of people complaining all over the web about various games being Vert- are NOT multi monitor owners. What gives regular widescreen users the idea that 4:3 compare to them should always be Hor- and not Vert+ ?

And yes, if you have the setup the developer optimized for, then who the hell cares about other setups? I don't cry for people with onboard sound issues, I don't use it.

There's no point having a discussion about it if you only care about what's right for you personally. It's impossible to discuss the 'ideal' solution if you blindly only care about your particular setup. We try and look at the bigger picture and strive for proper AR implementation. That doesn't stop at 4:3 to 16:9 comparisons. The main reason there is negativity towards a vert- solution from people with single monitor setups is the FOV ends up feeling far too tight.
It's basically an enemy to flexibility which is what the PC platform is so great at.

But for the record, I think all users should be able to see AT LEAST the full viewable area that was optimized for. Generally, that would be Hor+ for aspects beyond 16:9. And Vert+ for ones below. Or we can all see the same with anamorphic.

There is certainly some substance to vert+, hor+ solutions in the future and previous discussions about such matters have been had before. However the attitude you have towards this coupled with experience of how discussions about such matters have gone in the past makes me tentative to keep this thread unlocked.

I see no value in vert - solutions. If 16:9 truly is the baseline behavior, and taking away from the sides would detract from the game, then the game should be anamorphic, with hor + for surround users, such as in The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Dark Athena.

If 16:9 is baseline, but "vert +" in 4:3 improves the game, then the vertical FOV in 4:3 should have been baseline to begin with.

If 16:9 is baseline, but "vert +" in 4:3 improves the game, then the vertical FOV in 4:3 should have been baseline to begin with.

This sums up my feelings as well.

If you are supporting multiple aspect ratios you should have a consistent view between them or otherwise admit that you don't care how the game displays and give the players full customization controls.

I wouldn't wamt to make a game without knowing how it would display however. But maybe I am behind the times.

I see no value in vert - solutions. If 16:9 truly is the baseline behavior, and taking away from the sides would detract from the game, then the game should be anamorphic, with hor + for surround users, such as in The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Dark Athena.

If 16:9 is baseline, but "vert +" in 4:3 improves the game, then the vertical FOV in 4:3 should have been baseline to begin with.

Mostly agree with this.

The problem is that the FOV for these games is based on sitting 10 feet from a TV, not 2 feet from a monitor. 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.

I agree that we should note a difference between "Vert-" widescreen support or "Vert+" 4:3 support, but it's hard because it is not a quantifiable thing, you sort of have to feel it out. I tend to make a notation in a detailed report that it was likely designed for 16:9 and leave it at that. There are games with proper FOV that have more Vert+ behavior and still get bad grades... Wheelman is one, if you ask me, the FOV in 16:9 feels perfect and increasing it to make it Hor+ compared to 4:3 makes it way too zoomed out.

If 16:9 is baseline, but "vert +" in 4:3 improves the game, then the vertical FOV in 4:3 should have been baseline to begin with.

QFT, cranky.

My main concern is that now we have most games being multiplatform. This means we have a mix of people playing far away from the screen (consoles) and people playing close to the screen (PC). Both of these settings can call for different FOV; a lower FOV wouldn't seem so awful if you were far away from the screen when playing on a console, but once you boot up your PC it's suddenly an issue because a lower FOV wont cut it when you're that close. Not many games (if any) have different FOVs, or adjustable settings based on the platform the game is being played on.

Then we have the issue of baseline 16:9 -> 4:3. The best implementation of flexibility in this aspect is FEAR 2 (after patch). By default the game is set to animorphic behavior in 4:3/5:4, while this preserves the "artistic vision" of the baseline 16:9, it wastes a lot of screen space. Some people would rather sacrifice their FOV than have wasted screen space- things are also a lot smaller in animorphic solutions, so for those people FEAR 2 has the option to go HOR- from the 16:9 baseline. I applaud this flexibility and I think it's the closest thing we can get to a "perfect" solution, mostly because it caters to pretty much everybody's tastes.

I see no value in vert - solutions. If 16:9 truly is the baseline behavior, and taking away from the sides would detract from the game, then the game should be anamorphic, with hor + for surround users, such as in The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Dark Athena.

If 16:9 is baseline, but "vert +" in 4:3 improves the game, then the vertical FOV in 4:3 should have been baseline to begin with.

This is what I don't understand.You basically take the position that single widescreen users shouldn't see less than standard screen users (I say it depends on baseline aspect)... and building on that thinking, multi monitor wide users shouldn't see less than single widescreen users (I agree), regardless of what the baseline aspect is.

But why do you think standard screen users SHOULD see less than single widescreen users in all cases? Why can't they see more as well, where the game is say, Vert+ on aspects lower than the baseline aspect, and Hor+ higher aspects (eyefinity/th2go)?

If you have a single monitor that's already at the baseline, you're getting everything the developer wanted to show you. Why does it matter if someone else with a different setup is seeing even more (multi monitor users seeing more on the sides w/ Hor+ implementation, standard screen users seeing more on the top and bottom w/ Vert- implementation)

It's not fair? It's no less than the intended view!

or otherwise admit that you don't care how the game displays and give the players full customization controls.

This is what I do personally :)

A hidden option for absolutely everything.

Good sir, I think in general the best solution would being able to customize the game however the user feels comfortable. This is true with controls, and graphic settings, why not just add a slider or user input to the FOV commands, for both Hor and Vert values in both directions (4 values).

We PC gamers have at our finger tips the niceness of an open platform where we can tweak things to our liking (no so with consoles), I think we should, instead of Pushing Hor+, Push fully customizable FOV.

I'll be honest, in plenty of games I do wanna see more up and down as well as left and right (I'm a Surround Gamer)

Since we seem to be back to debating the same issue we had when the first Bioshock game came out, I would like to link a post that I found to sum up quite nicely the argument that HOR+ from 4:3 makes the most sense; regardless of the designed baseline for the game.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=109322#p109322

funny posts, but they doesn't make any arguments on why games should never be Vert-.

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.

we shouldnt be so quick to add FOV to single widescreen aspects in games with Vert-, because perhaps 16:9 already looks just the way it should.


clearly, in the past, most games looked "as they should" at 4:3, so giving ourselves more information on our widescreens, rather than less, was ideal.

I'm not convinced that's the case these days. I'd sooner believe 16:9 is the baseline in a lot of cases, and what you get is what you should be seeing, and thus whether 4:3 compared to it was taller or narrower is totally irrelevant, and any changes to increase FOV at the already correct 16:9 are detrimental to designer's vision.

I'm not convinced that's the case these days. I'd sooner believe 16:9 is the baseline in a lot of cases, and what you get is what you should be seeing, and thus whether 4:3 compared to it was taller or narrower is totally irrelevant, and any changes to increase FOV at the already correct 16:9 are detrimental to designer's vision.

PC gaming is about the power to ignore the developer's vision in a lot of ways. I almost wonder if that has something to do with console gaming being more of a focus now that games are almost on the same level as movies.

Anyway, I think both you and cranky are right along with everyone in between. The 16:9 view is almost surely the baseline for a ton of these games which really does call into question the whole "vert-" thing, you are not the first to say so, but at the end of the day how would you make a grading system based on that? The only way to know for sure for a graded report would be a direct developer comment which is pretty hard to obtain.

In the end we should follow the grading system but also make comments to the effect of "seems to be developed with 16:9 in mind" to further inform the reader.

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.

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