Widescreen Gaming Forum

I can't believe a moderator split out a thread for the sole purpose of feeding a troll. I mean, seriously guys, his name is even an indication of what is going on: replace the middle r with an o.

Please stop feeding him. You are making kittens cry.

How about you put that all into a bunch of cohesive arguments rather than breaking sentance down under a microscope. It seems to me like you are picking holes in arguments to remain in some sort of remance of...something. I am not interested (and I doubt anyone else is, other than yourself) in drilling down into that much detail.

Unfortunately, rational argument on a technical topic such as 3D graphics requires attention to detail. It is easy to slip into hand-waving arguments that don't actually make sense. But perhaps it is time for a recap:

1. Bioshock's FOV may not be to your individual taste, but it is not wrong in any objective sense. At typical viewing distances, it is close to the fraction of the video field occupied by the screen. Such a FOV results in a perspective-correct view, with angles, distances, and sizes of objects exactly the same as if the screen were a window into the game world. This is a geometric fact, and can be verified in multiple references on 3D graphics and simulation, as I've already cited.

2. Virtually all objections to Bioshock's FOV are coming from people with a strong pre-existing bias that 16:9 FOV must always be wider than 4:3 FOV, many of whom have not even given the original version of the game a fair chance. Bioshock has received the highest reviews of any game for the XBox 360 and sold over 1.5 million copies in the first 3 weeks. FOV is extremely important to the player experience, as the very existence of this forum demonstrates. It is hard to imagine any game meeting with such success if the FOV were defective in any genuine way.

3. Claims that being able to see more vertically with the same horizontal FOV (on a 4:3 monitor) constitutes "zooming" or some other kind of alteration of perspective are wrong. Changing the shape of the viewport window cannot affect perspective. This can be verified in any reference on 3D graphics. Human perception also does not work this way. This can be verified by the simple test of examining whether the apparent size or distance of objects outside your window changes if you pull the shade part way down so that the part of the window that you are looking through is either 4:3 or 16:9. You will find that raising or lowering the shade does not change the perspective of objects outside. This is true even if you look through only one eye (to simulate a flat screen by eliminating binocular depth perception). This proves that your brain understands the geometric fact that perspective does not depend on the aspect ratio of the viewport.

3. No single FOV is perfect for all games. A FOV such as Bioshock's provides maximum realism and accuracy of perspective, but sacrifices peripheral vision, so that a game must use other mechanisms (such as Bioshock's audio cues) to compensate for the lack of peripheral vision. A wider FOV simulates peripheral vision at the price of screen distortion and reduction in the apparent size of objects, and may be more appropriate for a game that emphasizes fast action over suspense and atmosphere. Some people may prefer one approach over the other, but this is a matter of individual taste.

4. Bioshock is not advertised as providing a wide-FOV multiscreen display on nonstandard ultrawide multiscreen configurations, so failing to provide such enhanced support is not valid grounds for complaint. Given the very small market penetration of such systems it is unreasonable to expect developers to base their development strategies on what works best for such systems.

5. FOV is absolutely fundamental to 3D graphics. Manipulation of FOV for dramatic effect or for cinematic "camera" effects such as zoom is routine. Any skilled 3D graphics designer pays careful attention to FOV. The high quality of every other aspect of the game demonstrates that the developers are highly skilled and competent. Irrational/2K developers have stated that they tested multiple variations of the 16:9 FOV before choosing the one that worked best, but this really goes without saying; any experienced game developer does this as a matter of course. The notion that an experienced designer would simply accept the default FOV of a graphics engine is ridiculous. Claims that all Unreal 3 engine games are using the same FOV are false; Gears of War has a different FOV than Bioshock, as does Rainbow 6 Vegas. Rainbow 6 Vegas is even "horiz+", using a wider FOV for 16:9 than for 4:3

6. Bioshock's FOV was originally designed to optimize gameplay on 16:9 displays. For 4:3 displays, the designers had two options: crop the sides or expand the game vertically. Keeping the same FOV is easiest and most economical, because it does not involve the additional cost of playtesting and possibly revising the game to prevent play from being harmed by a narrower FOV than the game was originally designed for. Although it is clear from Irrational/2K's public statements that they did not deliberate as extensively on the 4:3 FOV as the 16:9 FOV, the absence of complaints from 4:3 screen owners indicates that it was not a bad choice. As with FOV, no single approach for handling different aspect ratios is best for all games, and other games may well choose to crop the sides.

In #1, you glossed over the whole locked FOV variable debate. Most of us don't care what the default is, we want to be able to change it. THAT is the debate, not the default FOV strawman you've crafted. If the FOV was unlocked, you'd likely never have heard of it on the 2K forums.

#2, See #3 & #6 below

#3, If you don't understand why it is actually zoomed when you change aspect without changing FOV, reread my previous post.

#4, It is not unreasonable to expect developers to use best practices for a triple A title.

In #6, there are THREE options. They playtest 16:9 then use Horz+ for all aspects wider and Vert+ for all aspects taller. This is a perfect solution requiring no additional testing (because nothing is cut off relative to the original frame) brought up a dozen times that you again ignore.

Looks zoomed to me. Shit, guess I must not be human since human perception doesn't work that way.

Looks zoomed to me. Shit, guess I must not be human since human perception doesn't work that way.

Human vision does work that way. To compare images with the same FOV, they must be adjusted to the same width, because FOV is geometrically related to the physical width of the image (or monitor). If you make one wider than the other, the eye will interpret the wider one as "zoomed."

The ideal distance from a monitor such that an image with a 75 degree FOV will look perspective correct, as if were an actual window into the game world, is two-thirds of the width of the screen. At this distance, the width of the image of your monitor on your retina will be the same size, no matter what the physical size or aspect ratio of the monitor is. This corresponds to adjusting the two images to the same width.

Try it. Adjust the two images to the same width, and you'll find that the impression of "zooming" will vanish, proving that it is not related to FOV but to the physical width of the image. Indeed, you could even reverse it by making the one on the left wider , and then it will appear "zoomed." This corresponds to the comparison of a large 4:3 monitor with a small 16:9 monitor at the same viewing distance. Of course, in real life people generally sit closer to a small monitor than a large one.


It has been a fun discussion, but I think we've covered everything and are essentially repeating the same arguments, so I guess that it's time to bow out. Also, as of about 10 minutes ago, I bought some shares of stock in Take Two Interactive, which owns 2K, which means that I am no longer a disinterested observer, as I now have a personal interest (albeit modest) in the success of Bioshock. Thanks to everybody who participated.

still looks zoomed to me sorry that just doenst work and your sill missing part of the screen in 16:9

The ideal distance from a monitor such that an image with a 75 degree FOV will look perspective correct, as if were an actual window into the game world, is two-thirds of the width of the screen.

I don't want a tiny window into the game world though. I want to see what the player sees.

Maybe the FOV is geometrically correct for a "window into the game environment", but I don't think that really matters since the brain never believes it's looking at something real anyway.

Like I said before you're focusing too much on angles and geometry when how you really perceive something doesn't work in a mathematically perfect manner.

When I play a game the most overriding sense I have is where the player character's head is/should be, not where my head is. All I know is, Bioshock's default FOV looks unnatural to me. Maybe it's just that I'm used to wider FOVs in games; maybe the 'rules' that apply to looking at real physical scenery doesn't apply when looking at a 3D game on a 2D screen; maybe it's the player's in-view hand that messes things up, perhaps it wasn't there I'd feel differently.

I think what's "geometrically correct" is 1% of the equation and what "looks and feels right" is 99%. So arguing the geometry seems largely moot to me.

Now if you want to say that Bioshock's FOV is fine from an artistic/opinion side of things, that's fine. I personally disagree (as do several others), I like a wider FOV and I don't think it changes the gameplay experience in any appreciable way. As I said before I think the only salient argument you can make on either side is that you like it, or you do not - everything beyond that is pointless.

still looks zoomed to me sorry that just doenst work and your sill missing part of the screen in 16:9

You've stretched it in only one dimension, not simply increased the size until that the horizontal dimensions match. And yes, you'll still be missing part of the screen in 16:9. Here's what I meant:

[quote]still looks zoomed to me sorry that just doenst work and your sill missing part of the screen in 16:9

You've stretched it in only one dimension, not simply increased the size until that the horizontal dimensions match. And yes, you'll still be missing part of the screen in 16:9. Here's what I meant:



and its till vert- so it doesnt matter and you made the 4:3 image bigger
which is the same as zooming in >.> when viewed in full screen it doesnt work like that

what ever tricks you want to use with a screen shot doesnt matter the end is the same when viewed full screen

widescreen is zoomed in and missing part of the image

4:3 on the left and 16:10 on the right
right bottem is 16:10 with adjusted FOV


sure looks zoomed in to me in top right and all were shot with the same vertical res 1050 the 4:3 is 1400x1050 and 16:10 was 1680x1050
as you can seen once you adjust the FOV you get hor+ with the same zoom or lack there of as 4:3

you have to look at it from the stand point of the image filling your screen
i cant just make my LCD bigger or smaller sure i could play at 1440x900
but then whats the point of having a higger res?

hor+ and vert+ for 5:4 can be done at same time Quake wars does it
and it keeps the same Preserved zoom as 4:3
and if you look 16:10 isnt that much wider then 4:3 any way the FOV is still tighter then most and the game still felt the same
and btw the adjusted FOV is about 85 or 86
so theres no distortion with the added with