Widescreen Gaming Forum

you still not getting it are you
i dont care about viewing distences i want to see MORE

like the one dev at 2k said you would see MORE with wide screen

now when some one says to me i will see MORE it means more then 4:3
not less

if he meant i would a more DETAILED screen he would of said that

2k lied end of story
they were cought in there lie and are now fixing it (slowly)

i dont thing it any thing to do what the devs intended other then the 360 cant handle hor+ widescreen with out a large drop in frame rate

@ trrll ... stop double posting !
Edit you previous post if you decide you have something else to say.

Do you believe that they are obligated to invest in providing an enhanced gaming experience to an unusual, nonstandard configuration that probably constitutes less than 1% of their customer base and that the game is not advertised as supporting?

No I don't think they are OBLIGATED. But I do think they should have an interest that their game look as good as possible on as many "setups" out there as possible... but there's just ONE thing in the way:

The horizontal width is LOCKED. Therefore the wider the display, the more you have to crop. Now to me, that isn't an ideal way of creating a game "window". Remember that YOUR preferred FOV can still be implemented WITHOUT locking the 4:3 aspect ratio. That's just simple programming!

The fact that BioShock's width IS locked at 4:3 (and it just so happens that nearly all the other recent U3 engine games ALSO lock the 4:3 aspect) stinks of lazyness on the part of the developers.

Okay now, we're going around in circles with regards to the FOV choice by the develops, you like it, I don't, let us say no more about it.

So I'd like to ask you: What are you favourite 3D FPS games, and which of those do you think think 'nailed it' with regards to your desired FOV? (discounting BioShock)

The half life series have over 15 million copies sold.
http://steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=news&id=648

Comparing the aggregate sales over years of multiple games in a series to the sales of Bioshock alone over 3 weeks? Do you really imagine that to be a valid comparison?

If anything Bioshock got MORE sales due to bad FOV implentation and all the publicity it received around it.

Oh yes, I always run right out and buy a game when I hear people complaining about it. It must be the complaints that created those 1.5 million sales, it can't possibly be the widely reported strong reception of early versions of the game at game shows, or the virtually unanimous rave reviews from gaming magazines and major web sites, or the demo. You certainly have a high opinion of your own impact on the market...

There is probably a lot of 4:3 users within the 1.5 million copies sold too, don't you think? ;) And they are not complaining about FOV being too wide....

Based on the statistics, widely reported here that show how wide screen gaming is taking over, I doubt if that had a major impact. A lot of those copies were XBox 360, and the big selling point of the platform has been its support of widescreen HD gaming.

Talking about the sales of Bioshock is a waste of time, unless for publicity reasons. It does not reflect whether or not the FOV was bad and if you really were a scientist, you'd dismiss that as evidence.

On the contrary, sales are the closest thing that we have to an unbiased survey. Word gets around pretty quickly if a game doesn't live up to the hype.

People are not complaining about the game being bad, but that the FOV implentation of it was bad

Aside from here, I haven't seen much of anybody complaining about the FOV. Can you find me any professional game reviewer who complained about the FOV? But I do agree that the average user does not judge a game based upon a single rigid criterion such as FOV, or whether his monitor shows "more" than somebody else's, but rather upon the total experience--whether all of the esthetic and gameplay choices of the developer combine to create an exciting, immersive game experience. And people who are willing to judge the game as a whole seem to regard it as a hit.

This is the same formula as the other one you have referred to earlier, just put in another way. I wasn't asking for the formula on how to calculate the FOV based upon the distance you are sitting. Bioshock have a locked horizontal FOV and its not adjustable to where you are sitting. As I have mentioned earlier, 75 degrees are too narrow for desktop widescreen gaming.

75 degrees corresponds to an optimum viewing distnce that is 2/3 of the width of the screen. Do you really think that many PC users sit closer than that?

Since we are talking about a locked FOV which you defend with this formula saying its optimal, I am asking you once again: Whats the relevance of the given "optimal" angle compared to human eyesight?

The relevance is that it is an angle at which an undistorted, correct perspective, actual size image can be provided at typical viewing distances.

To give you some insight upon human vision, since you, despite calling yourself teacher, are operating with a 75 degrees optimal angle despite how the human vision functions.

The human visual system functions very well with a limited field of view. We look out of windows, we drive cars, we fly airplanes, we wear glasses that provide clear vision over only a portion of our visual field, and yet we judge sizes and distances accurately.

I think you misunderstand. We EXPECT to see more horizontal [hor+). The size of the objects registered with our brains are based upon our depth perception as mentioned earlier.

When we look out of a window, we expect to see what we should see, based upon the width of the window and how far we are away from it, and that expectation informs our perception of size and distance.

This is where you don't understand the mission for first person shooters and people. We don't want to look through a window or stand at a doorstep. We want to be in the world. Our lifetime experience differ from yours. we are not looking at the world through a window or AT a window if to use Bioshocks FOV.

But it is hard to perceive yourself as being in the world if what you see is distorted, unlike everything that you see in the real world. Short of a true virtual reality system, there are only two choices: a view that looks like a window into a real world, or a view that looks like a distorted picture in a frame.

This whole thread has gone to the birds. Its has degreded into discussions about minor disputes of facts and figures and is being dragged into pettyness.

The argument still remains that BioShock the great game that it is, had widescreen implemented poorly. It was NOT a choice to implement it that way, that is evident. It was an EPIC UnrealEngine3 (UE3) choice, a UE3 implementation as seen with all of thier other UE3 titles. So stop saying it was a design decision and try backing it up with suggestions that calculations could have been used by 2K on thier game.

If there were FOV calcs and other such design decisions made by 2K like you say, then why are they ALL the same with the other UE3 titles?Wouldn't EPIC have left those design descision up to each developer instead of making it default? Clearly it was default, and thus clearly it has something to do with performance of the engine not some artistic design decision. What a crock.

Yeah sure 2K said it was meant to be that way. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that that was a calculated media comment, which doesn''t mean it was true. It was a media release comment meant to save face, I mean, what else do you think they would have said against such a furore?

Stop arguing semantics you lot.

_________________
moboP8P67-M-PRO-V3 cpuI5-2500K-3.3GHZ ramOCZ8GB gpu260GTX hddOCZ-VERTEX II-SSD psuNEOHE550W hudBENQ20"

Trrll, for the last time buddy... NOBODY IS ARGUING AGAINST YOU. You want a default FOV of 75... it's all yours. We want to be able to change that FOV to suit us at will. There is no dilemma here. We want Horz+, as a default, if you are playing as the developer intended, THIS DOES NOT AFFECT YOU. And if we get our ability to change FOV at will, you get the ability to undo Horz+ if you don't like it, and the ability to undo "un-window-like" FOV's if developers use the FOV's we prefer! See why this is a win-win?

This is why it is so baffling as to why you continue to argue. What do you have to gain when you've already got everything you want, and can't possibly lose it if we "win" anyway?

you still not getting it are you
i dont care about viewing distences i want to see MORE

like the one dev at 2k said you would see MORE with wide screen

now when some one says to me i will see MORE it means more then 4:3
not less

if he meant i would a more DETAILED screen he would of said that

2k lied end of story
they were cought in there lie and are now fixing it (slowly)

i dont thing it any thing to do what the devs intended other then the 360 cant handle hor+ widescreen with out a large drop in frame rate

Developers sometimes forget that a tentative remark made during development will be taken by some players as some sort of ironclad contract, and that any subsequent deviation from those early plans will result in outraged accusations of betrayal and lying. In this case, however, it sounds that they were trying to be careful. Chances are that when those comments were made, the final FOV for 4:3 hadn't even been decided upon. So he carefully avoided answering any questions about "vert-" or "horiz+", and said the one thing that he absolutely knew to be true--the widescreen display was being generated at the full resolution of the monitor, without stretching, and since widescreens typically have more pixels, that necessarily meant that widescreen users would see more--more pixels of game information.

I doubt if the power of the 360 has anything to do with it; the computational cost of rendering a 3D image has more to do with the pixel resolution than with the FOV, and there are plenty of 360 games with wider FOVs than Bioshock.

This whole thread has gone to the birds. Its has degreded into discussions about minor disputes of facts and figures and is being dragged into pettyness.

The argument still remains that BioShock the great game that it is, had widescreen implemented poorly. It was NOT a choice to implement it that way, that is evident. It was an EPIC UnrealEngine3 (UE3) choice, a UE3 implementation as seen with all of thier other UE3 titles. So stop saying it was a design decision and try backing it up with suggestions that calculations could have been used by 2K on thier game.

If there were FOV calcs and other such design decisions made by 2K like you say, then why are they ALL the same with the other UE3 titles?Wouldn't EPIC have left those design descision up to each developer instead of making it default? Clearly it was default, and thus clearly it has something to do with performance of the engine not some artistic design decision. What a crock.

The Unreal engine provides settings to modify FOV. If it didn't, it wouldn't be so easy to hack it to change the FOV. Control of FOV is a basic feature of a 3D engine; without it, a game would not be capable of carrying out the most basic "cinematic" effects such as zoom in or zoom out. So it simply doesn't make any sense to suppose that this choice is somehow being imposed by EPIC. I find it particularly revealing that so many people are willing to embrace the ridiculous notion that this choice is somehow imposed by the Unreal engine, presumably because the obvious explanation--that EPIC did leave it up to developers, and that multiple developers are making similar decisions because they have independently considered how best to handle different aspect ratios and have come to similar conclusions--is so unpalatable that you cannot even bring yourself to consider it.

Yeah sure 2K said it was meant to be that way. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that that was a calculated media comment, which doesn''t mean it was true. It was a media release comment meant to save face, I mean, what else do you think they would have said against such a furore?

They could have said, we'll release a patch to let you change it the way you like. In fact they did say that.

Here again, what I find particularly revealing is that you are so willing to embrace the notion that a developer taking a multi-million dollar risk in game development, one with extensive experience in 3D game development, one with the artistic and game design expertise to produce a game that goes immediately to the top of the charts, would somehow forget to think seriously about something so very elementary as FOV. Indeed, you are so desperate to believe this that when they say that they did what even the most rank beginner would do--try out various alternatives to decide what works best--you immediately presume that they must be lying.

And by the way, is it even true that all Unreal games are using the same FOV? The fact that other state-of-the-art 3D games are using the same approach of keeping the same FOV for all aspect ratios and opening up the game vertically is hardly evidence that the FOV itself is the same as Bioshock's. You guys have been claiming that it is all about adequate FOV, not about being jealous of 4:3 screen owners seeing more "stuff" on the screen than you do. So why do you so readily fall back on comparing 4:3 and 16:9 displays? Why would a forum devoted to widescreen gamers even care about what 4:3 players are seeing?

[quote]you still not getting it are you
i dont care about viewing distences i want to see MORE

like the one dev at 2k said you would see MORE with wide screen

now when some one says to me i will see MORE it means more then 4:3
not less

if he meant i would a more DETAILED screen he would of said that

2k lied end of story
they were cought in there lie and are now fixing it (slowly)

i dont thing it any thing to do what the devs intended other then the 360 cant handle hor+ widescreen with out a large drop in frame rate

Developers sometimes forget that a tentative remark made during development will be taken by some players as some sort of ironclad contract, and that any subsequent deviation from those early plans will result in outraged accusations of betrayal and lying. In this case, however, it sounds that they were trying to be careful. Chances are that when those comments were made, the final FOV for 4:3 hadn't even been decided upon. So he carefully avoided answering any questions about "vert-" or "horiz+", and said the one thing that he absolutely knew to be true--the widescreen display was being generated at the full resolution of the monitor, without stretching, and since widescreens typically have more pixels, that necessarily meant that widescreen users would see more--more pixels of game information.

I doubt if the power of the 360 has anything to do with it; the computational cost of rendering a 3D image has more to do with the pixel resolution than with the FOV, and there are plenty of 360 games with wider FOVs than Bioshock.

yes but if you note NONE of them use the UT3 engine
seems to its some thing that engine

Look, I'm all for free discussion, but Trrll: stop double posting nearly all the time. You're supposedly intelligent, so use that intelligence and pay attention to warnings.