Widescreen Gaming Forum

Proper widescreen support (Horz+) does NOT affect the view of 4:3 users. 4:3 users would see the same frame if the game was vert- as they would if the game was horz+ or if the game didn't support widescreen at all! And why should a vert- be forced on widescreen users which shows them 44.5% less of the frame than what a horz+ widescreener would see and 25% less than a 4:3 user. It makes no sense to support widescreen that way :/

[quote]If I had to guess, I'd assume that they developed for 16:9, because that's what the 360 is, and that's where they're likely to get the majority of their sales.

The majority of their users are 4:3! Just because someone owns a 360 does not mean they're running a HD televion. Just the opposite is the most common case.

I was going to say the same thing and even offer some data to back up what I said (something he fails to do every time he posts).

Only 30% of Xbox 360 users were aware of the HD capabilities of the machine.

http://gamer.blorge.com/2007/08/09/wii-wins-because-microsoft-and-sony-cant-explain-xbox360ps3-benefits/

They don't even know what HD is!

Just like PC gamers get the shaft with console ports being tailored to for the lowest common denominator it's more likely that 360 HD users are having the same thing happen to them, either because they're catering to the 4:3 majority or because of a performance hit. But quite frankly I don't care about that. I just want to see them implement WS support like other developers do, such as Valve (see numerous screen shots demonstrating this).

I want to thank WSGF for informing the public of this problem and letting 2KGames know aswell.

Keep up the great work. =)

For the people who still don't get how the widescreen looks zoomed in in comparison to 4:3, part of the problem is that it's not really obivous when you see the widescreen screenshot scaled down and placed within the 4:3 screenshot. Here's a 4:3 and 16:9 screenshot at the same height side by side, hopefully this should making the "zooming" effect much more apparent:



These screenshots are taken from Gabbo's report on the game.

This is it, in a nutshell. I believe we may have a troll or two on this thread, people who are determined not to understand what is staring them directly in the face, but Gabbo's screens make it crystal clear. In this case, seeing definitely is believing.

Widescreen users prefer that format because, among other things, it lets us see more, not less. And in the screens above you can clearly see two things:

1) Portions of the image are cropped in order to simulate an actual widescreen image, and ...

2) The main effect of this cropping is to lend the image a permanently zoomed-in look. Unlike some of my fellow posters, this hasn't made me nauseous (although I haven't played the demo for more than five minutes so far) but it does make the experience of playing the game feel somewhat unpleasant and cramped for me. There are many (mostly console) FPS that give you the option to toggle a zoom-in key while in a gunfight, in order to better target enemies. More than once I've used that option, forgotten that I left it on, then wondered why the image looks so odd ... But then I realize I just left the zoom toggle on, and no wonder it looks odd-- the game wasn't meant to be played zoomed in the entire time! (As I said before, I'd compare it to holding my face a few inches away from the screen.)

There's a guy on here trying to argue that this might have a deliberate design decision, and that this is a perfectly acceptable widescreen solution, etc etc. And he's right. It is a perfectly acceptable widescreen solution ...

... if you don't give a damn about widescreen.

I am cancelling my amazon order right now, unbelievable :cry:

_________________
Dipping bags at Mach1.9

There's a guy on here trying to argue that this might have a deliberate design decision, and that this is a perfectly acceptable widescreen solution, etc etc. And he's right. It is a perfectly acceptable widescreen solution ...

... if you don't give a damn about widescreen.

unsure if you were talking about me, but it WAS clearly a design decision... else we would not even have the widescreen option there is currently.

what I was NOT trying to say was that it was "perfectly acceptable" (never used those words) but rather using examples of other mediums where that same decision has been made to show that it "technically" IS widescreen. But only in the lamest of ways.

my point was that there is enough ignorance out there that thinks it is all the same and no one will notice the diff... when clearly if you care about it at all you will notice.

I am a movie and game nut, which naturally implies that I would rather watch a movie like ben-hur in it's original 2.76:1 ratio on a 19" 4:3 TV than see it cropped and lose the splendor. It is aggravating the way that they implemented the widescreen, but it is a good thing that Levine responded fairly quick and gave something for us to look forward to.



If you were not refering to me as the aforementioned troll, then let the above serve as just more fuel for this thread and rock on...

...if you were, well... uhh, dunno what else to tell you man. 8)

_________________
"I never drive faster than I can see... Besides that, it's all in the reflexes."
-Jack Burton

[quote]There's a guy on here trying to argue that this might have a deliberate design decision, and that this is a perfectly acceptable widescreen solution, etc etc. And he's right. It is a perfectly acceptable widescreen solution ...

... if you don't give a damn about widescreen.

unsure if you were talking about me, but it WAS clearly a design decision... else we would not even have the widescreen option there is currently.

what I was NOT trying to say was that it was "perfectly acceptable" (never used those words) but rather using examples of other mediums where that same decision has been made to show that it "technically" IS widescreen. But only in the lamest of ways.

my point was that there is enough ignorance out there that thinks it is all the same and no one will notice the diff... when clearly if you care about it at all you will notice.

I am a movie and game nut, which naturally implies that I would rather watch a movie like ben-hur in it's original 2.76:1 ratio on a 19" 4:3 TV than see it cropped and lose the splendor. It is aggravating the way that they implemented the widescreen, but it is a good thing that Levine responded fairly quick and gave something for us to look forward to.



If you were not refering to me as the aforementioned troll, then let the above serve as just more fuel for this thread and rock on...

...if you were, well... uhh, dunno what else to tell you man. 8)

Ak, now you're going to force me to go through and try to find the "acceptable" quote (hopefully I didn't imagine it). But no, sojrner, I wasn't talking about you--twas the evil cornbread guy I was referring to.

Wasn't F.E.A.R. released with no WS and later patched for WS support?

Weren't there a few other games that were released with FakeWideScreen that were later patched to support true WS?




8)

Yo Paddy, well done on finding that one out. I must confess I didn't notice any problems as I was playing the demo on both 360 and PC in widescreen and never even bothered going into fullscreen. Nice find!

Ah well, I am sure 2K will get their backsides in gear and release a proper patch to fix this issue, they aren't EA after all ;)

I posted about this issue on PCZone's technical site under the bioshock thread...


http://forums.dearwandy.com/viewtopic.php?id=23527

Page 3 near the bottom. Their reviewer replied with a very interesting point, namely



"This wasn't mentioned in the PC Zone review because we didn't know about it. We didn't know about it because we played through the entire game in widescreen without noticing anything wrong, or feeling that the screen was cramped in any way. It's just not an issue. Although if I owned Widescreen Gaming Forum, I'd probably take it upon myself to be outraged."

"Would you have picked up on this had you not read about it on Kotaku? I doubt it."

My reply....
Er wrong... I was at the WSGF that broke this tidbit before it even hit that site.. In fact that site nicked our pic from our thread on that forum the same as several other sites are doing including shacknews

http://www.shacknews.com/

about fourth article down now... And anyway since when do hardware concerns not get reflected in a review? Just because it's a monitor issue shouldn't relegate it to the 'not interested' bucket should it?


And so it continues on that site

Wow.. some people have no idea do they.

Yeah we only find out about stuff off of Kotuka..... give me a break...

Some people need to learn to keep there mouth shut....

To all the people on here saying that there isn't a problem, please look at the screenshots. Its obvious the screen is cropped and that is not how widescreen works.

I also have thought maybe 4:3 is actually a FOV overshot, but after thinking about it, why is there a perfectly created wrist on the character in 4:3. It seems to me its suppose to be seen all the time, otherwise why is it there in 4:3 at all.

Take a game like battlefield 2, when thats in Vert- widescreen you can still see the characters gun/hand completely just like in a normal 4:3 resolution. So why in Bioshock do we only see half his hand?