Widescreen Gaming Forum

The only way to know for sure for a graded report would be a direct developer comment which is pretty hard to obtain.

Developer comments aren't a dependable source either. 2K games claimed this about BioShock. And then they fixed it.

Otherwise it's perpetuating a mentality that Vert- = always wrong, and that's really not necessarily true.

When is it not wrong? If 16:9 is "correct" in a vert - game, that would mean 16:10 and 4:3 have too much vertical FOV and are therefore incorrect.

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

The burden of proof for such a claim would lie with you.

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.

Your argument is that if 16:9 is the baseline, then "Vert-" in comparison to 4:3 shouldn't be considered wrong. You may be correct. However, 16:9 should have a wider FOV that 16:10. And with Vert- it doesn't. And, Surround or Eyefinity should have a wider FOV than 16:9. A Vert- game is seriously crippled in TH/EF.

You are correct that when we started developed the grading system, 4:3 was considered the baseline and that we were comparing how it "scaled up" to 16:9. I would accept your argument that 16:9 could be considered a new baseline and can be a better indication of what the developer intended. However, it should still react properly when "scaled up" from this new baseline to multi-monitor. A Vert- games does not do this.

The grading system encompasses far more than the single comparison you are drawing between 4:3 and 16:9. Don't forget that many PC games are on 16:10 monitors, and multi-monitor is becoming more popular. A fixed vertical FOV and scaling horizontal FOV solves all problems. And yes, this thread is Deja Vu all over again.

Otherwise it's perpetuating a mentality that Vert- = always wrong, and that's really not necessarily true.

When is it not wrong? If 16:9 is "correct" in a vert - game, that would mean 16:10 and 4:3 have too much vertical FOV and are therefore incorrect.

Kind of agree:

First, anything other than the intended aspect will be "incorrect" insofar as it's not the baseline intended aspect (and related FOV). Unless anamorphic, all aspects have to have more or less FOV compared to each other. Just because 4:3 and 16:10 in that scenario have more than 16:9, doesn't mean they'd need a Hor+ fix to have less than 16:9. They can't have the same FOV as intended, so why NOT give them more. They are totally entitled to have the intended FOV and then some, rather than less than the intended FOV. It's the exact reverse of why this website was created when games were baseline 4:3. Why should 16:10 and wider users get less than 4:3? We discover methods and hacks to give ourselves more instead. It's still never "correct" because it's never 4:3.

In the case of a Vert- game already being correct at 16:9, because of the common thinking here and the way solutions and DRs are written, 16:9 users would believe they should be hacking their game to Hor+ and thus result in giving themselves more FOV than intended. There's nothing to tell them "hey wait, this game's baseline IS 16:9, you have nothing to change"

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

The burden of proof for such a claim would lie with you.

Supreme Commander? Mass Effect?



I'll respond to Ibrin soon. And sorry I wasn't around for the last round of discussion on this topic, apparently.

Supreme Commander? Mass Effect?

I'll respond to Ibrin soon. And sorry I wasn't around for the last round of discussion on this topic, apparently.

They 16:9 on those may have been the FOV that the developer wanted. But, Surround/Eyefinity was fuckered. Our goal is to serve both communities - WS and TH/EF. You didn't miss much in the last go-round on this, as it's basically repeating itself. The grading system isn't going to change. It can take into account "Vert+ in 4:3 with "Hor+ in TH/EF". It does so with Anamorphic in 4:3 and Hor+ in TH/EF.

I for one don't have the time or the energy to go through this discussion again. It got bad enough (at least for me) that I considered just pulling the plug on the whole WSGF. We got it settled then, and I can't rehash it again. If you'll excuse me, I have other areas of the site to work on...

Your argument is that if 16:9 is the baseline, then "Vert-" in comparison to 4:3 shouldn't be considered wrong. You may be correct. However, 16:9 should have a wider FOV that 16:10. And with Vert- it doesn't. And, Surround or Eyefinity should have a wider FOV than 16:9. A Vert- game is seriously crippled in TH/EF.

"shouldn't be considered wrong..." for 16:9 and narrower aspects.

Why should wider aspects have a wider FOV? Why can't taller aspects have a taller FOV?

I agree that regardless of whether the baseline is 4:3 or 16:9, that multiwide users suffer with Vert-, as they're losing some of the intended FOV.

But current thinking is that everyone wider than 4:3 suffers with Vert-, and that's only true if 4:3 is the baseline.

You are correct that when we started developed the grading system, 4:3 was considered the baseline and that we were comparing how it "scaled up" to 16:9. I would accept your argument that 16:9 could be considered a new baseline and can be a better indication of what the developer intended. However, it should still react properly when "scaled up" from this new baseline to multi-monitor. A Vert- games does not do this.

Again, why is Hor+ considered "proper"? That's the crux of my thread. I think Vert- could be just as good for all aspects at and narrower than the baseline. Vert- is clearly not proper for aspects wider than the baseline.

The grading system encompasses far more than the single comparison you are drawing between 4:3 and 16:9. Don't forget that many PC games are on 16:10 monitors, and multi-monitor is becoming more popular. A fixed vertical FOV and scaling horizontal FOV solves all problems. And yes, this thread is Deja Vu all over again.

I'm only focusing on that comparison because that's the only place there is a problem. Multi-wide users need Hor+ in pretty much every situation, because the baseline aspect is always smaller than their aspect and they should be gaining FOV vs having to lose it.

Grading reflects this already. However, everything else seems to suggest that 16:9 and narrower users are also losing something and need to fix things if the game is Vert-. That's not necessarily true, and the site literature should be updated to acknowledge that.

And on Vert- games where as-is FOV on 16:9 is correct, people should be made aware there is nothing they should do (unless they have a multi monitor wide setup).

Without that notice, you have users "correcting" behavior where it shouldn't be, and giving themselves more FOV than intended, when they already had 100%+ of the intended FOV

Myself for example, from this site was taught that Vert- = bad/dumb/stupid/etc. but since I'm merely a 16:10 owner and now understand the concept of a baseline aspect. I realise it doesnt necessarily mean any better or worse than Hor+.

You say a fixed vFOV and expanding hFOV fixes all problems. If the game was that way already, then sure. But if the game is Vert-, then actually, it creates problems for users at, or below the baseline aspect. They're correcting a non existent issue and thus creating one.

They 16:9 on those may have been the FOV that the developer wanted. But, Surround/Eyefinity was fuckered. Our goal is to serve both communities - WS and TH/EF. You didn't miss much in the last go-round on this, as it's basically repeating itself. The grading system isn't going to change. It can take into account "Vert+ in 4:3 with "Hor+ in TH/EF". It does so with Anamorphic in 4:3 and Hor+ in TH/EF.

I for one don't have the time or the energy to go through this discussion again. It got bad enough (at least for me) that I considered just pulling the plug on the whole WSGF. We got it settled then, and I can't rehash it again. If you'll excuse me, I have other areas of the site to work on...

Great job with the site so far, far and away. One of the best resources on the net. I don't want the grading system to change.

I just want two things

1. It acknowledged and the thinking to change that for Single-screen users Vert- does not necessarily mean they're losing anything they're supposed to see, and shouldn't necessarily search to make the game Hor+

2. The addition of a console games widescreen behavior list/database. Please see my other thread for the work I already started.

Why should wider aspects have a wider FOV? Why can't taller aspects have a taller FOV?

Because having a taller FOV is not useful. More sky and more ground does not help - it just screws up the frame's focus.

But current thinking is that everyone wider than 4:3 suffers with Vert-, and that's only true if 4:3 is the baseline.

If you assume 16:9 is the baseline, then 4:3 and 16:10 users get too much vertical FOV. And if you assume 4:3 is the baseline, then everyone else gets too little. Either way, vert - means SOMEBODY gets the wrong amount of vertical FOV, and therefore suffers.

Why should wider aspects have a wider FOV? Why can't taller aspects have a taller FOV?

Because having a taller FOV is not useful. More sky and more ground does not help - it just screws up the frame's focus.

It's not always ground and sky. see: Supreme Commander. That also opens up all sorts of other arguements, like that any hFOV past ~120 is also not "useful", because human FOV isn't that wide.

But current thinking is that everyone wider than 4:3 suffers with Vert-, and that's only true if 4:3 is the baseline.

If you assume 16:9 is the baseline, then 4:3 and 16:10 users get too much vertical FOV. And if you assume 4:3 is the baseline, then everyone else gets too little. Either way, vert - means SOMEBODY gets the wrong amount of vertical FOV, and therefore suffers.

?...but Hor+ means the same thing (here's your same sentence edited for a Hor+ game): If you assume 4:3 is the baseline, then 16:10 and wider get "too much" horizontal FOV. And if you assume 16:9 is the baseline, then 16:10 and everything taller get "too little". Either way, Hor+ means somebody gets the wrong amount of horizontal FOV, and therefore suffers.

I'd say you only suffer when you get less than the baseline's FOV. ie. Anyone wider than the baseline on a Vert- game. or Anyone taller than the baseline on a Hor+ game. Getting more isn't suffering. It's the better of the two choices. Are surround users suffering because Hor+ gives them more than the baseline FOV? Or is that "too much" like you said?

Here is how you justify Horizontal scaling.

There is no such thing as vertical height, just horizontal.

For example 4:3 and 16:9
Lets scale 4:3 up to the lowest comparable resolution resulting in 12:9

Why should 4:3 have any more vertical height over 16:9?

It is NOT taller.

Granted these are just arbitrary comparisons and you could make one that is the exact opposite. But its pretty clear to see how 4:3 and 16:9 stack up. 1600x1200 vs 1920x1200.
Honestly, what you want is pixel based because that is the only way that is basically perfect, and its how most applications sans 3D games work, for good reason.

Here is how you justify Horizontal scaling.

There is no such thing as vertical height, just horizontal.

For example 4:3 and 16:9
Lets scale 4:3 up to the lowest comparable resolution resulting in 12:9

Why should 4:3 have any more vertical height over 16:9?

It is NOT taller.

Granted these are just arbitrary comparisons and you could make one that is the exact opposite. But its pretty clear to see how 4:3 and 16:9 stack up. 1600x1200 vs 1920x1200.
Honestly, what you want is pixel based because that is the only way that is basically perfect, and its how most applications sans 3D games work, for good reason.

Why'd you "scale up" to 12:9? Why not the equally "comparable" 16:12, to use your comparison? Then it is taller.

And please don't tell me what I want. Especially when it's something I've never mentioned. Pixel based? What? I said what I want very clearly the post to Ibrin.

*fetches some popcorn and gummy bears to watch the argument*