Originally Posted by Archangel The Xbox 360 and PC version both include a save any-where any-time feature which is even worse that the Vita-Life chambers because there's no penalty for using it.
EDIT:
Re: modding, prob too early to tell, but its UE3, which is supposed to be modder-friendly so don't be surprised.
My question, though, would be why mod the best game since The Secret Of Monkey Island?
Yeah, I've confirmed the save feature elsewhere on t'interweb. As for a penalty for using it... why? If you think it's too advantageous, just rely on the chambers - no-one is forcing you to use the save functionality.
Why mod? Why not? I'd certainly want to play the game in it's vanilla state initially, but there is no reason why extra content or mods to existing content couldn't be worthwhile. This is the beauty of PC gaming vs consoles... the experience can be enhanced or extended by enthusiasts [and in the case of Oblivion, it can be fixed].
Originally Posted by Paradigm Shifter What's really amusing about this game is that you see more vertically with a 4:3 aspect screen/res than you do at 16:10 or 16:9...
are you saying to make widescreen, the game basically just took out the top and bottom? instead of render more in left and right?
10/10 isn't surprising, I thought the demo was amazing. Luckily I get to pick up my copy after work today, then I'll probably play for like 5 hours straight hehe.
are you going to do a dx10 vs dx9 comparison in the 'performance' review?
more from the graphical improvements point of view than from the frames/sec point of view i mean :p
Originally Posted by Hamish are you going to do a dx10 vs dx9 comparison in the 'performance' review?
more from the graphical improvements point of view than from the frames/sec point of view i mean :p
In a word, yes.
Yesterday we were discussing what cards to do it on, and Tim has a pretty comprehensive range planned. I wont say what because that would spoil it.
Originally Posted by Tim S We'll be investigating this more when we get final PC code later today, but I wouldn't be surprised if in actual fact the FoV in the 360 version is the same as the PC widescreen mode.
Widescreen on the PC and the 360 is the same - 75 degrees - if you run 4:3 on a PC, you get more vertical FOV. So it's a vert-minus game. Which is appalling, given that it uses the Unreal Engine 3, and that it's 2007.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu are you saying to make widescreen, the game basically just took out the top and bottom? instead of render more in left and right?
Originally Posted by Paradigm Shifter Widescreen on the PC and the 360 is the same - 75 degrees - if you run 4:3 on a PC, you get more vertical FOV. So it's a vert-minus game. Which is appalling, given that it uses the Unreal Engine 3, and that it's 2007.
That's fantastic news - it caters for people with normal monitors. The sooner we can end this widescreen fad, the better.
So is that screenshot completely accurate in that it's just a quick change of resolution and you actually see less of his arm and weapon etc in widescreen? Surely it couldn't have been remotely difficult to do it the other way around? It seems an absurd decision.
cjmUK - I assume that you are being sarcastic... either that, or you've never been to the cinema...
K - I don't know the details about how that shot was taken (I'm presuming that the widescreen was shot at a higher res and shrunk down to fit the 4:3 shot, as the framerates differ drastically.) This was made by one of the Senior Moderators at the WSGF.
Originally Posted by cjmUK That's fantastic news - it caters for people with normal monitors. The sooner we can end this widescreen fad, the better.
Personally i prefer the wide-screen both for gaming and for work, if find left to right screen space more useful. But surely doing it properly could not have been that difficult in this day and age, still at least its native. Playing old games with no native w/s is a bit of a pest.
I think this is correct if you develop the game for widescreen. When switching to 4:3 on a game developed in 16:9 would you expect to lose the horizontal fov or gain vertical? In my opinion you shouldn't reduce the horizontal fov on a FPS so they've added height.
Originally Posted by K It seems an absurd decision.
Not really... the devs are effectively saying that the horizontal axis is more important/useful/preferable to the player therefore you will get the same horizontal view regardless of your hardware.
They could have taken the view that the vertical axis was more important, in which case they would cropped it the other way.
Ideally, both axis should be equally important if the game requires you to look up & down as much as left & right, but since we have widescreen monitors is extensive use, the devs have to jump one way or the other.
In a driving game (generally moving and looking left & right) the width is paramount. I can't think of one offhand, but I'm sure there will be a game genre where looking up and down is more important.
In these games where we are (almost equally but not quite) interested in both axis, they have to make a decision and cropping the height makes sense.
But the way Bioshock treats widescreen gamers then is exactly the same way that Battlefield 2 and 2142 do, then - in other words, they are penalised because they have a widescreen.
Do you go to see a film and the cinema, and when you watch it on a 4:3 TV get extra 'on top'? No. You lose the sides. That's the way film widescreen/non-widescreen has worked, and with various companies (like nVidia) pushing 'cinematic gaming'... well.
Originally Posted by Paradigm Shifter cjmUK - I assume that you are being sarcastic... either that, or you've never been to the cinema
I was being vaguely controversial but certainly not sarcastic.
Yes I have been to the cinema. And it is because we have widescreen formats at the cinema, that we have widescreen TVs and monitors. Cutting a long story short, we have widescreen cinemas because cinema owners figured they could sqeeze more people in if they made them wider - doesnt work well if you try to build them higher. And hence we have widescreen films, and consequently, widescreen TV and monitors.
Whereas ergonomically speaking, our eyes prefer a format closer to standard 4:3 format. If you imagine each eye's view is a circle, and if we combine two eyes together we get something like a horizontal figure of eight - which is closer in shape to 4:3 than 16:9.
So we have this widescreen fad because back in the day, cinema owners and the studios were greedy, yet out bodies prefer the conventional shape.
And hardware manufacturers are happy to support this because they can shift more stock.
But the way Bioshock treats widescreen gamers then is exactly the same way that Battlefield 2 and 2142 do, then - in other words, they are penalised because they have a widescreen.
Wrong, the game would have been built for widescreen and it would be absurd to reduce the horizontal fov for 4:3.
But the way Bioshock treats widescreen gamers then is exactly the same way that Battlefield 2 and 2142 do, then - in other words, they are penalised because they have a widescreen.
Do you go to see a film and the cinema, and when you watch it on a 4:3 TV get extra 'on top'? No. You lose the sides. That's the way film widescreen/non-widescreen has worked, and with various companies (like nVidia) pushing 'cinematic gaming'... well.
well... i think first the "format war" of 16:9 vs. 16:10 (tv widescreen vs. pc widescreen) should be resolved... because if not... they would have needed to make a 16:9 version for the xbox360 and a 16:10 version for the pc.
Ooh... it's been a while, but I believe that R6V also cuts the top and bottom...
edit below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjmUK Whereas ergonomically speaking, our eyes prefer a format closer to standard 4:3 format. If you imagine each eye's view is a circle, and if we combine two eyes together we get something like a horizontal figure of eight - which is closer in shape to 4:3 than 16:9.
So we have this widescreen fad because back in the day, cinema owners and the studios were greedy, yet out bodies prefer the conventional shape.
How much peripheral vision do you have? It should be somewhere in the region of 160-175 degrees... while your vertical field of view (without moving your eyes) will be far narrower... and that means that a wider screen would more naturally fill your field of vision...
Originally Posted by Tim S Moan at Epic then, it's a UE3 "feature" - nothing to do with 2K Boston/Irrational Games.
Hang on, though. UT2003/2004 supported widescreen correctly, but there were games using that engine that did not. It's down purely to the implementation by the dev house.
Originally Posted by Paradigm Shifter Hang on, though. UT2003/2004 supported widescreen correctly, but there were games using that engine that did not. It's down purely to the implementation by the dev house.
Well, from what I've read, GoW does the same too and that was developed by Epic Games... until that comes out on the PC, we're never going to know if this is an implementation problem on Irrational's part, or a lack of a feature on Epic's part.
Having said that, playing the game on both PC and 360 on widescreen monitors, I can't say I've missed the pixels. Don't get me wrong here though - it's not cool that there isn't a wider FOV, but simply blaming the developer when it could infact be the engine licenser that is causing the problem isn't right IMO.
Comments 26 to 50 of 256
ReplyYeah, I've confirmed the save feature elsewhere on t'interweb. As for a penalty for using it... why? If you think it's too advantageous, just rely on the chambers - no-one is forcing you to use the save functionality.
Why mod? Why not? I'd certainly want to play the game in it's vanilla state initially, but there is no reason why extra content or mods to existing content couldn't be worthwhile. This is the beauty of PC gaming vs consoles... the experience can be enhanced or extended by enthusiasts [and in the case of Oblivion, it can be fixed].
I'd love to see it.
A Multiplayer game would be cool, with Big Daddy's running around so you have to be careful where you shout lest they become your enemies.
Hadn't thought of that specifically - but yeah - that would be cool. Part of the joy of the experience is sharing it with someone.
more from the graphical improvements point of view than from the frames/sec point of view i mean :p
In a word, yes.
Yesterday we were discussing what cards to do it on, and Tim has a pretty comprehensive range planned. I wont say what because that would spoil it.
Here's an example pic...
http://wsgfmedia.com/uploads/paddywak/screenshots/bioshock/BioshockFOV.jpg
That's fantastic news - it caters for people with normal monitors. The sooner we can end this widescreen fad, the better.
K - I don't know the details about how that shot was taken (I'm presuming that the widescreen was shot at a higher res and shrunk down to fit the 4:3 shot, as the framerates differ drastically.) This was made by one of the Senior Moderators at the WSGF.
Personally i prefer the wide-screen both for gaming and for work, if find left to right screen space more useful. But surely doing it properly could not have been that difficult in this day and age, still at least its native. Playing old games with no native w/s is a bit of a pest.
Not really... the devs are effectively saying that the horizontal axis is more important/useful/preferable to the player therefore you will get the same horizontal view regardless of your hardware.
They could have taken the view that the vertical axis was more important, in which case they would cropped it the other way.
Ideally, both axis should be equally important if the game requires you to look up & down as much as left & right, but since we have widescreen monitors is extensive use, the devs have to jump one way or the other.
In a driving game (generally moving and looking left & right) the width is paramount. I can't think of one offhand, but I'm sure there will be a game genre where looking up and down is more important.
In these games where we are (almost equally but not quite) interested in both axis, they have to make a decision and cropping the height makes sense.
But the way Bioshock treats widescreen gamers then is exactly the same way that Battlefield 2 and 2142 do, then - in other words, they are penalised because they have a widescreen.
Do you go to see a film and the cinema, and when you watch it on a 4:3 TV get extra 'on top'? No. You lose the sides. That's the way film widescreen/non-widescreen has worked, and with various companies (like nVidia) pushing 'cinematic gaming'... well.
I was being vaguely controversial but certainly not sarcastic.
Yes I have been to the cinema. And it is because we have widescreen formats at the cinema, that we have widescreen TVs and monitors. Cutting a long story short, we have widescreen cinemas because cinema owners figured they could sqeeze more people in if they made them wider - doesnt work well if you try to build them higher. And hence we have widescreen films, and consequently, widescreen TV and monitors.
Whereas ergonomically speaking, our eyes prefer a format closer to standard 4:3 format. If you imagine each eye's view is a circle, and if we combine two eyes together we get something like a horizontal figure of eight - which is closer in shape to 4:3 than 16:9.
So we have this widescreen fad because back in the day, cinema owners and the studios were greedy, yet out bodies prefer the conventional shape.
And hardware manufacturers are happy to support this because they can shift more stock.
Wrong, the game would have been built for widescreen and it would be absurd to reduce the horizontal fov for 4:3.
well... i think first the "format war" of 16:9 vs. 16:10 (tv widescreen vs. pc widescreen) should be resolved... because if not... they would have needed to make a 16:9 version for the xbox360 and a 16:10 version for the pc.
edit below:
If that is the case, you would need to moan at Epic, as it would appear to be a UE3 "feature" - nothing to do with 2K Boston/Irrational Games.
Hang on, though. UT2003/2004 supported widescreen correctly, but there were games using that engine that did not. It's down purely to the implementation by the dev house.
Well, from what I've read, GoW does the same too and that was developed by Epic Games... until that comes out on the PC, we're never going to know if this is an implementation problem on Irrational's part, or a lack of a feature on Epic's part.
Having said that, playing the game on both PC and 360 on widescreen monitors, I can't say I've missed the pixels. Don't get me wrong here though - it's not cool that there isn't a wider FOV, but simply blaming the developer when it could infact be the engine licenser that is causing the problem isn't right IMO.
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
...
-
11
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums