Widescreen Gaming Forum

[-noun] Web community dedicated to ensuring PC games run properly on your tablet, netbook, personal computer, HDTV and multi-monitor gaming rig.
It is currently 04 Nov 2024, 22:24

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008, 08:19 
Offline

Joined: 06 Jun 2006, 08:56
Posts: 616

... but more casual gamers often won't explot it. Again, developers often create their envoriments with such considerations in mind, and narrowing the FOV for narrower aspect ratios would subvert such intents.


Again, seems like you think you represent a large range if not the entire sample of gamers and developers that exist and are speaking for that entire sample.

I agree with the Blue Mak. You are just trolling.

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


Top
 Profile  
 


PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008, 16:44 
Offline

Joined: 03 Mar 2007, 06:34
Posts: 287
So if someone expresses an opinion that's contrary to yours in a civil manner it's trolling?

Have you guys so easily given up on making valid counterarguments that now you just resort to name calling?

I've had my fill of discussing this topic on the Insiders forum, but there is merit to what kyleb says. No one is saying that vert-/+ is a preferable solution - only that if indeed these games were designed for 16:9 first and foremost then the widescreen experience is not being impacted as much as we believe.

Whether you believe the games were developed for 16:9 screens is a point of contention, but certainly as 360 games it's not like they loaded them up on a 16:9 TV a day before the game went gold and said "meh it's ok, print it". They had to be running and testing on HDTVs throughout development.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008, 18:07 
Offline

Joined: 19 Sep 2006, 11:49
Posts: 330
WHAT point of cutting the view and zooming in just to fit a widescreen view you DON'T get?

And all the previous mentioned games were made with the UNREAL 3 engine, so everyone single of those games, their developers have the SAME artistic view? Are you kidding me?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008, 19:53 
Offline

Joined: 03 Mar 2007, 06:34
Posts: 287
WHAT point of cutting the view and zooming in just to fit a widescreen view you DON'T get?

And all the previous mentioned games were made with the UNREAL 3 engine, so everyone single of those games, their developers have the SAME artistic view? Are you kidding me?

What part of "No one is saying that vert-/+ is a preferable solution" don't you get?

We're all in agreement that the way these games implement widescreen is not optimal and I agree that it's a result of the UE3 engine defaults.

However, if the games were designed at 16:9, and the developers chose the FOV specifically for that aspect, then it's really a matter of taller resolutions seeing more vertical space than the developer intended, not widescreen resolutions seeing less. That's all we're saying man. We're saying 16:9 isn't a compromised experience because that's (what we think) the game was designed at.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008, 20:59 
Offline

Joined: 15 Apr 2005, 19:49
Posts: 85

However, if the games were designed at 16:9...

I don't understand how this can rightly be considered be a matter of question. The games being discussed here, and UE3 itself, were all designed to target current generation consoles, where 16:9 HD output is the optimal output and 4:3 support is secondary. That is an obvious fact supported by an abundance of evidence which you, as well as Glottis and myself presented previously, Furthermore as you noted, that fact has yet to be addressed with anything beyond ad hominem attacks. So, I am left at a loss here, where is there any "if" at all in this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008, 21:12 
Offline

Joined: 03 Mar 2007, 06:34
Posts: 287
[quote]
However, if the games were designed at 16:9...

I don't understand how this can rightly be considered be a matter of question. The games being discussed here, and UE3 itself, were all designed to target current generation consoles, where 16:9 HD output is the optimal output and 4:3 support is secondary. That is an obvious fact supported by an abundance of evidence which you, as well as Glottis and myself presented previously, Furthermore as you noted, that fact has yet to be addressed with anything beyond ad hominem attacks. So, I am left at a loss here, where is there any "if" at all in this?
I agree, but I was trying to compromise a little in my diction.

It is still an assumption, one that I think is very reasonable based on the context and available evidence, but an assumption nonetheless. We weren't actually present for the development.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008, 21:36 
Offline

Joined: 15 Apr 2005, 19:49
Posts: 85
What does actually being present matter when we have countless 16:9 screenshots and video from the development of these games all over the web? Surely the charge of assumption is better suited to those wanting to belive all that evidence is just some giant conspiracy?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008, 21:53 
Offline

Joined: 03 Mar 2007, 06:34
Posts: 287
What does actually being present matter when we have countless 16:9 screenshots and video from the development of these games all over the web? Surely the charge of assumption is better suited to those wanting to belive all that evidence is just some giant conspiracy?

A safe assumption is still an assumption. It's highly unlikely, but not impossible that they could still have developed the games at 4:3 despite all promo media being made at 16:9.

Anyway, I'm on your side man, don't argue with your supporters; that if was for the other side :) Just trying to get them to consider the fact that if the game was developed at 16:9 as we're asserting, then we're not really "missing" anything from the intended experience.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008, 23:11 
Offline

Joined: 19 Sep 2006, 11:49
Posts: 330
[quote]WHAT point of cutting the view and zooming in just to fit a widescreen view you DON'T get?

And all the previous mentioned games were made with the UNREAL 3 engine, so everyone single of those games, their developers have the SAME artistic view? Are you kidding me?

What part of "No one is saying that vert-/+ is a preferable solution" don't you get?

We're all in agreement that the way these games implement widescreen is not optimal and I agree that it's a result of the UE3 engine defaults.

However, if the games were designed at 16:9, and the developers chose the FOV specifically for that aspect, then it's really a matter of taller resolutions seeing more vertical space than the developer intended, not widescreen resolutions seeing less. That's all we're saying man. We're saying 16:9 isn't a compromised experience because that's (what we think) the game was designed at.

So you are saying that what the developers do is give height that they didn't want to, to the 4:3 users and that basicaly it is the 4:3 users that they suffer since they can't play the game as the developers originaly wanted?


hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
HA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2008, 23:43 
Offline
Insiders
Insiders
User avatar

Joined: 21 Mar 2006, 05:01
Posts: 1993
Looks liek this thread is becoming fairly unproductive.

See? I didn;t even have anything useful to add...

Let's hope they remedy it for the sequel.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  




Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group