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.

_________________
Formerly eZ`

Follow me on twitter: @theg00seberry and find me on Steam

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)

_________________
Formerly eZ`

Follow me on twitter: @theg00seberry and find me on Steam

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.

_________________
Formerly eZ`

Follow me on twitter: @theg00seberry and find me on Steam

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.