Widescreen Gaming Forum

Haha, I love 2K's response, it's almost poetic. A true argument of semantics.

To paraphrase:

"It's not that WS sees less than 4:3, it's that 4:3 sees more than WS". Because those are two totally different things... :P


I can understand their reasoning though.

They wanted a WS (wide horizontally) game experience. They didn't want to cut down on the horizontal view for 4:3. This is like watching WS movies on a 4:3 display. To maintain the whole horizontal view, you will lose some vertical space (black bars on top and bottom).

However they didn't want black bars to "mar" the 4:3 experience. And, unlike a movie which is fixed on film, a game can give you any viewpoint, viewing angle, etc it wants. So they effectively just "removed" the black bars from top and bottom and let you see what was behind on 4:3. This is the "unecessary" extra info that 4:3 sees, that isn't really part of the "true game experience". So WS isn't missing anything, it's just that 4:3 has some extra "useless" visual area only to avoid the dreaded black bars. But the whole game was designed/balanced without it, so WS users shouldn't miss it :P

A bad PR move on 2k's part, as whether this was your intention or not, it's a dangerous game of semantics that will only serve to irritate their users more.

The only solution at this point is to give the end user the freedom to choose what "view" they want, regardless of what the "true design" of the game was.

Aggies

Well stated.

Your post makes almost too much sense. It's like you stated everything I have been trying to convey, only you did it much better. The only difference being that they consider "unnecessary extra content" on the top and bottom of the screen for 4:3 to not negatively impact gameplay as they envisioned it, but why extra "content" on the sides would?

Wait.. you see. I can't even form sentences anymore.

It is completely about semantics. It can be argued from both sides ad nauseam. I now worry that as more games are developed for widescreen as the base, will more games start being known as VERT+ for the 4:3 users?

Oh! The humanity!

Oh and...

:welcome

I ask you this..what is the the ratio of widescreen to 4:# in their offices...if they say they developed it in widescreen:


http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/irrationalvisit1.html

Mister trrll, I hope one day you buy a wide monitor and will one day understand, that is all I have to say.

I have a wide monitor. At least insofar as the demo goes, I think that the "claustrophobic" FOV chosen works extremely well in maintaining the atmosphere of the game. I wouldn't want to play the 4:3 version where everything that matters is smaller and lower resolution--I find it a much less dramatic and exciting display. I think the extra image added at the top and bottom in 4:3 actually impairs the experience, but is probably the best that can be achieved with that aspect ratio, as it is less unsightly than letterboxing and does not harm the gameplay as cropping off the sides would.

If the developers put in a wide-FOV patch to comfort the "I-gotta-see-more-stuff-on-the-sides" zealots, I just hope they retain the option to play the game as it was originally designed.

I ask you this..what is the the ratio of widescreen to 4:# in their offices...if they say they developed it in widescreen:


http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/irrationalvisit1.html

LOL Priceless!

It's just lies on top of lies on top of lies... next they'll completely back peddle... and say "We never meant for the game to be truly widescreen." I bet you one hundred dollaroonies!

You know, whatever 2k says, I think this has been a textbook example of 'massive overreaction.'

I agree with the sensible posters in here — the game is awesome and was worth all the money I spent (I can't say that about a lot of games). At the same time, the game should have been released hor+, not vert-.

But really, that's about where the sensibilities end. The people that canceled their pre-orders are, to put it bluntly, pretty stupid. Depriving yourself of a great game because *gasp* it doesn't allow you to see 20% more on the sides is like saying, "Hey, that Porsche doesn't have side mirrors that let you see all 180 degrees behind you." — That's a stupid reason not to buy it if you were going to before you knew about it.

I find it amusing that people will not buy a game, not because it's doesn't work or has really crappy gameplay, but because they have to move the camera a bit more to see more. Heaven forbid someone make a game that lets 4:3 users an advantage - because truth be told, 2kgames knows that that's what it is, even if they claim they optimized it for widescreen first and then 'un-letterboxed' for the 4:3 users. Maybe they did; it doesn't make a difference.

But thousands of diggs and hundreds of complaints about it not being 'proper' widescreen? Why aren't people complaining more about it not unlocking properly, video driver problems causing BSODs, or other actual -issues-?

Now that the game has been hotfixed by Racer_S, would you newcomers please shut up about how this "destroys your faith in 2k" and how they're all "idiots for not properly supporting widescreen". They made a choice, and I see no reason why they should stick by it. If they say they planned for widescreen first, and then chose to expand top and bottom so 4:3 users wouldn't letterbox, why is that so unbelievable? The end result is the same: 16:9 shows up as a 'crop' of 4:3, but it can't hurt to at least have a little bit of trust in them.

Good for them for being on vacation. I would too, if I had just spent the last months making a game that tops the metacritic list of games.

Here's a hint: buy the game, play the game, and then come back and play it again with the patch Racer has so nicely provided us. If you tell me it made a grave difference in gameplay, tell me how and we can go from there. If you haven't played the game yet and are saying how it's wrecks it — pardon the language — shut the hell up.

If the developers put in a wide-FOV patch to comfort the "I-gotta-see-more-stuff-on-the-sides" zealots, I just hope they retain the option to play the game as it was originally designed.

Not being funny but with an attitude like that towards widescreen gamers/gaming why on earth are you registered in a widescreen gaming forum, and not just any WSG forum but probably the most famous one on a site that strives for correct WS implementation in games.

That's just... weird.

re: Gabbo

Thanks, I certainly tried.


One thing to keep in mind though, (although I'm not sure if it's the case for Bioshock, and I have no idea how you could find out) is consider the following:

Take a traditional game with true WS support. You have the regular 4:3 view, then you have the WS view, which is the 4:3 one, but with more horizontal viewspace. All is well with the world, the game has "true" widescreen support.

Now take the same game, keep WS the way it is "working 100%", but modify the 4:3 experience. "Zoom" out the 4:3 experience so that is has the same horizontal viewing area as the working WS. To maintain proper aspects, you also have to zoom vertically, so the 4:3 view now has a greater viewing area (zoomed out).

Has anything with the WS changed? Nope, so WS still works perfectly 100%, was not altered. So WS people should be just as happy as they were before, as nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is a different way of doing 4:3. But let the 4:3 people worry about that.

Now what if this hypothetical game, is in fact Bioshock?

Obviously I can't say whether this is the case or not, but it does beg the interesting question. What if Bioshock's WS is fine, it's just that the 4:3 implementation is buggered up. Is the definition of WS absolute on it's own, or does it only exist relative to the 4:3 implementation? Does WS only mean "wider than 4:3, no matter how they do 4:3".

My whole point is, take a game that has 100% working widescreen, that everyone is happy with, and then change their 4:3 implementation. Does that automatically mean that WS no longer works? Or is it seperate.

I'd imagine that maybe you can find this out by looking at a perfect circle rendered in the game, and seeing if how changes in FOV alter it's perceived shape. But thinking too hard about that hurts my head, so I will refrain ;)

Aggies

For me, HL2 is a shining example of how widescreen support is properly done. 2K's mistake is using the same horizontal FOV for the 16:9 aspect ratio as 4:3. Valve doesn't do this, nor do other developers that, IMO, have a better understanding of the issue.

Every game is different. Bioshock is not HL2. 2K might well make different design choices for another game. A truly creative developer will not have a fixed policy like "always make the FOV wider on widescreen," but will consider each games esthetic and gameplay goals independently and choose the FOV that works best for each screen's aspect ratio.

like saying, "Hey, that Porsche doesn't have side mirrors that let you see all 180 degrees behind you."

I think it would be a more accurate representation if the porsche had a giant magnified windscreen instead of the usual glass, some people would hate it, while others might not even notice, still it would be nice to have the option to have both! :D

Haha, I love 2K's response, it's almost poetic. A true argument of semantics.

To paraphrase:

"It's not that WS sees less than 4:3, it's that 4:3 sees more than WS". Because those are two totally different things... :P

It actually means, that they developed Bioshock as widescreen game and then they added some extra FOV for 4:3 users! So we (wide screens owners) can be happy and they (4:3 screens users) can be happy as well! :P