No one will ever convince me that this game was designed in 16:9 as the game has a FOV that is clearly too narrow for 16:9 ... it feels wrong ... and it feels perfect in 5:4.
And what about all those FPS games from the last console generation which are 4:3 only an have an equivically narrow FOV for that aspect ratio. Surely you won't argue that those were designed for a narrower aspect ratio than the 4:3 they exclusively support?
Amen, kyleb and dopefish, please go try playing the game in 16:9 or 16:10 and then tell us that it feels better than 4:3.
I am playing it on a 16:9 plasma, as I have done nearly all my gameing on for about 4 years now. The thing is, haven't been talking about feelings. As for my feelings, I'd like a wider FOV, just like I'd like a wider FOV on pretty much every console based FPS around. That goes for the games designed to target 16:9 this generation just the same as it does the ones designed to target 4:3 last generation.
The narrow FOVs of such console games do feel wrong to those of us who are accustomed to the wider FOVs of PC games. However, for console gamers who have generally played such narrow FOV games, and who sit respectively further from their TVs than PC gamers sit from monitors, such narrower FOVs feel perfectly natural.
And, GeneralAdmission, the image you edited is an accurate representation. To clarify the situation, imagine that screnshot is of a cutscene where you talk to two people, one on the left edge of that 16:9 view and one on the right edge. Now imagine if narrower aspect ratios didn't add to the top and bottom of the image, but instead cut off the sides; that would leave 4:3 users not being able to see the charachters talking to them.
Login
FAQ
Search
Members
