BioShock Widescreen Supposed To Be Like That

[Andy Chalk]

BioShock Widescreen Supposed To Be Like That

A flood of BioShock's [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4883] poorly-implemented widescreen has led to an unexpected place: It turns out it's supposed to be that way.

In a post on the 2K Games [http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/home.html]addressed the concerns of widescreen gamers with an explanation of how, and why, widescreen was implemented in the game. She begins by clarifying that widescreen is the optimal mode for playing the game, and that the vast majority of BioShock's development was done on and for widescreen. The apparent cropping of the display to accommodate native widescreen resolutions is actually a concession to standard display owners, to ensure the same gameplay experience for owners of both display types.

"Instead of cropping the FOV [field of view] for 4:3 displays and making all 4:3 owners mad in doing so, we slightly extended the vertical FOV for standard def mode: We never wanted to have black bars on people's displays," she said. "This does mean that people playing on a standard def display see slightly more vertical space, but, this does not significantly alter the game-play experience and, we felt it best served our goal of keeping the game experience as close as possible to the original design and art vision on both types of displays.

"Reports of the widescreen FOV being a crop of the 4:3 FOV are completely false."

While it remains to be seen how the community will react to this information, 2K is aware that not everyone will be satisfied with the design. "We will be looking into options for allowing users to adjust FOV settings manually," Tobey said, but added that such changes do not happen quickly. More details are available at the Cult of Rapture [http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/home.html]website.


Permalink

 

[Bongo Bill]

I like and agree with the reasoning behind allowing the more common 4:3 monitors to see more than the 16:9 ones. But a crop is a crop is a crop, and if what he's described isn't a crop, then he must be talking about how the 16:9 field of view is not something grown in the ground and intended for human consumption. I'm not aware that there was any uncertainty in that regard, but I've been surprised before.

 

[StolenName]

TO be completely honest, I wish many of the people that have criticised this decision to sit down and be quiet. BioShock is a brilliant game and this "framing" as I'll call it, rather than "cropping", is an artistic decision. Actually, James Cameron (as a friend informed me) would film with a larger frame than necessary, then cut it to WS and provide 4:3 aspect ratio to include more excess information in order to fill the screen and remove black borders.

I believe they've made the right decision, and to be honest, the framing of the WS adds a distinct claustrophobic dimension to the game that I feel would be lost if seeing more of the screen.

I don't believe they should even make patches available to the game just to alleviate the bitching and whining that many people have had throughout the internet. Does it detract from the game? Only if you're too narrow-minded to ignore it. No reviewer noticed? Would it have received a lower review score had anyone cared - I would hope not.

 

[LxDarko]

People need to stop being so defensive for the devs of BioShock.

The field of vision may be artistic but not everyone prefers that kind of limit on their widescreen experience.

Over at the Kotaku comments one of the posters posted this image [http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6957/bioshockjq8.jpg].

People aren't complaining about the game they are complaining about the view. And there is no reason they couldn't have added an option for players to choose their field of vision that would have ended all this "bitching and whining" before it even started.

And also I play using a projector with a screen size of 133 inches diagonally so I notice everything there is no ignoring this for me.

My only possible workaround at the moment is to set my 360 to display in 480p 4:3 and then use the projector to letterbox the image into widescreen. All of that just because they didn't see the need to add another choice in the option menu.

 

[StolenName]

People need to stop being so defensive for the devs of BioShock.

The field of vision may be artistic but not everyone prefers that kind of limit on their widescreen experience.

Over at the Kotaku comments one of the posters posted this image [http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6957/bioshockjq8.jpg].

People aren't complaining about the game they are complaining about the view. And there is no reason they couldn't have added an option for players to choose their field of vision that would have ended all this "bitching and whining" before it even started.

And also I play using a projector with a screen size of 133 inches diagonally so I notice everything there is no ignoring this for me.

My only possible workaround at the moment is to set my 360 to display in 480p 4:3 and then use the projector to letterbox the image into widescreen. All of that just because they didn't see the need to add another choice in the option menu.

It's not necessary to include this function. If the developers have made the game to reflect a certain ideal, and BioShock really is a game that's been finely tuned, then that's how it was made. You're saying you the lack of top and bottom has greatly affected play, well it hasn't. You're not SUPPOSED to see that additional information - the additional vertical info is purely to COMPENSATE for for the lack of vision on the horizontal plane. That extra information doesn't help you play - what's the benefit in seeing more of his wrist?

If no one pointed it out, I'm sure you wouldn't have even bothered adjusting your display out of fear you're "missing out" and hence you wouldn't need to ignore "it" because you'd be playing the game as it was designed to be played.

 

[LxDarko]

From the start I wasn't a fan of the limited field of vision I but it was a demo so I overlooked it. Does this make Bioshock any less of a game because of their choice I wouldn't say so but at the same time for me the game isn't in the optimal view for my enjoyment. I ordered the game online and am getting it today in the mail and I'm going to use the view I enjoy the most.

But the real question is this, why would them having the choice available in the options be such a bad thing? Because of the lack of choice I am now presented with the option to either play it at 1080p with this the limited view or 480 letterbox negating the high definition. The same way you are saying the more limited view doesn't compromise the game is the same as me saying that the option to have the expanded view wouldn't compromise the game.

In the end it's a matter of preference and choice and less and less games (especially console games) are making room for these types of choices. And I fail to see how having fewer choices when adjusting the settings of a game is a good thing.

 

[Joe]

Over at the Kotaku comments one of the posters posted this image [http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6957/bioshockjq8.jpg].

This is what the argument is about? I'll never get hardware geeks.

 

[Andrew Armstrong]

I'll see if they add the correct options in so widescreen can operate correctly. Its an unreal engine and most of the other ones work with it fine luckily.

The demo did feel rather strange, I couldn't even see my guys arm, very odd. I'll see if this develops more, the game isn't out here yet anyway, but it is a shame.

 

[Junaid Alam]

What am I missing here? PC demo, whatever drivers were linked from the demo install, and no issues with 19x12 here that I can discern. I'm pretty sure I'm not playing 4:3 streched out to 19x12 (would that even be possible?) and the game looks normal to me.

 

[Russ Pitts]

I just switched my BioShock play sessions last night from a widescreen HDTV to a very large 4:3 standard def TV, and to be perfectly honest, even though I can now see the guy's wrists and a little extra space at the top, I still think the widescreen view looks better. I completely understand the technical issues involved, and why some folks are upset, but my gut reaction to the folks who are consternated over this is still: "get over it."

 

[Geoffrey42]

The primary complaint, junaid, as I understand it, is that from a first-person-perspective, 4:3 monitors are being allowed to show more than 16:9 monitors. People with widescreen displays have entitlement issues where they think 16:9 is the one "true" display, and 4:3 should be a chopped version thereof (less side to side visibility, same vertical display). The other "allowable" scenario is 16:9 as the definition, and showing it letterboxed on a 4:3 screen (same horizontal and vertical field of view, but taking up the extra space with black space).

In this case, they took the widescreen display, fit it all on a 4:3 monitor, then filled the empty space by opening up the vertical field of view.

Widescreen owners are angry because someone else is getting "more".

Even when, if you believe the Bioshock developers, the widescreen people get it the way it was designed, and the 4:3 is the hack-job. The widescreen people would actually be 100% satisfied, if the 4:3 version were instead a chopped version of the widescreen (zoom on 16:9 aspect and cut off sides), with the current widescreen view unchanged. If it were exactly the way it were, but 4:3 people got less, they would be happy. Rutting whiners. But Daddy, SHE got a WHITE pony for Christmas... This brown pony sucks. Take it back. I hate you.

And, by all acounts, the game is awesome. I don't have a 360, and my PC has an X800, so I'm simmering here UNABLE TO PLAY THIS AWESOME GAME and the people who DO have it are complaining about a non-issue, instead of enjoying the game! I'll just have to hold out hope for the Shader Model 2.0 hack to let me in on some fun...

 

[Andrew Armstrong]

Remember Geoffrey, if PC games last until the next generation of anything, be it screens or graphics cards, there may be a time when 16:10 or 16:9 is the middle level of widescreen, and movie-size widescreen is more common, or the fact on a huge/high resolution screen it'd look so ridiculous/crampt that the FOV needs zooming out, a problem with games hardcoding allowed resolutions.

Technical limitations on changing the FOV and letting the player determine what technical changes they make to the visibility of the game (would you stop the player adjusting the brightness? the volume?) so in this case, while the designers intentions are good, certainly allowing the choice is not a bad thing.

Its not like the choice affects anyone but the player who chooses to change it. A hidden ini option is what most people who are bothered would like.

Meh, I'm just saying, choice for technical things is a good idea, certainly for future proofing (such as FOV options in Unreal Tornament 2004, which didn't really have widescreens out when the game was around!). The fact that for 4:3 sometimes people want to alter the FOV too, is another reason to have the option. Some games default to 90FOV for 4:3, some to 75FOV, meaning some like to keep them similar (16:10 is more like 110FOV).

 

[Geoffrey42]

I don't contend that choice is bad, and in a PC world, where you can let the user put in all sorts of hardware, and 23 monitors, and still try to make the display work, options are wonderful. No contention there.

But, do you disagree with me, when I say that most of the people currently complaining, wouldn't even say anything, if the opposite had been true? That 4:3 had been given one of or the choice between letterboxed widescreen, or cropped widescreen.

If your argument is just that they should give you the choice, I think a lot of game makers then are at fault in that department. As I understand it, STALKER is the first in recent years to really embrace letting the user do whatever they want.

 

[Andy Chalk]

The 4:3 users are supposed to suffer because they refuse to embrace the future. Or something.

I can't say too much about it because I can't play the game myself (another X800 owner here) but it does seem kind of chickenshit to me. The difference is minimal, but to hear the uproar about it among some widescreen owners you'd think Levine, Kline and company spent their post-release time off gang-raping nuns. I suppose it should come as no great surprise. When any group gets it in their heads that their being treated unfairly and ripped off, objectivity goes out the window.

 

[Geoffrey42]

I don't think the controversy is so much about entitlement issues, as it is about a nagging feeling widescreen people have that they're going to get some kind of wonky camera view. It's impossible to tell what's going on from the linked images I've seen: in the one linked from this page, for instance, the info bars are between two points of the metal sculpture on the top left in the 16:9 frame, and above both in the 4:3. The question is whether there is any partial stretching/squashing going on.

As I mentioned before, according to the devs, they're not doing an squashing/stretching to get the effect in question. And based on the screen caps I've seen, I don't have any reason to disbelieve them. Nothing appears to be distorted. So while they might have niggling worries, A. The devs have come out and said they shouldn't be worried (I know we can't trust them, but it's still evidence of something), B. The screen caps corroborate the devs statements, and C. A nagging feeling is not enough to warrant the amount of whining they've all been doing, as if Levine had put porn in the margins that only 4:3 displays get to see!

Your compromise idea is pleasant, but I think from the development point of view, they would rather develop a game with a fixed view (horizontal and vertical), and then add more space to one of them. That way, you're not having to go through and verify that everything you want to be sure they can see is in both. You just develop for widescreen, and then add some space for 4:3. That way, whatever you can see in widescreen, you can see in 4:3. Your compromise would have them developing in some bizarre non-display ratio (the intersection of the 4:3 and the 16:9), then adding useless viewable area to both. Bah.

The only thing I will give them is this: "You will see more in widescreen. We use a different projection matrix; there is no squashing or stretching of the image involved" - Chris Kline, Bioshock Lead Programmer, May forum <a href=http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=659>post.

The first part of that is a lie. The second part still seems to hold true. Wouldn't be the first time a game developer promised us the world (like Earth!) and gave us a slightly smaller, dustier version, with less character (like Mars...). I still don't get what makes this case so much different, or worse. Which brings me to the next point...

So yeah, I think there's a lot more to this than a tantrum about ponies. :-D

I still think it's about ponies.

Your points about artistic direction and such, I feel are worthwhile, and I basically concur, without anything else to add.

 

[StolenName]

@ Geoffrey42 - I think that point regarding Levine's comment is THE crux-pin of this situation. Simply because of that one phrase, there's a lot of people complaining that wouldn't otherwise be. Without that statement, there would be zero backbone to the conversation I feel.

No matter what's said, I still feel people complaining they're missing out are unnecessarily bitching and moaning. I'm happy to be nearing completion of BioShock and haven't once thought "wow, gee, I wish I didn't have to move my thumb just a little to see that piece of rock up there I could've seen if they'd blah blah blah.

You know what? The FOV you get on widescreen is probably more akin to putting you in the game. From what I can tell of the screen shots and from my own experience in the game, the closer view to the hands with less either side really "puts you in the game". I can't imaging having the hands smaller or the weapons more in view because you'd feel more disjointed from "being" the character. And that is an extremely important point to this game.

Just sit and play the game - and shut up. I don't believe that Irrational should bother fixing a thing because it's not broke and if people are too stubborn to enjoy BioShock - that is their greatest loss.

 

[Andrew Armstrong]

Geoffrey, I do disagree that if 4:3 had simly less visible left-right screen, there would be a problem. Although usually in any game nowadays you can alter the FOV, so even square resolutions can be whatever they want it to be. I presume its a design decision due to some in-game cutscenes or something.

The standard has usually been Hor+ because of the technical issues involved in Vert- (as shown here [http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6568]). Usually what designers do is make everything visible in 4:3, then add on extra space for widescreen afterwards. This is usual because it simply looks the best, since it keeps the zoom for both the same, and doesn't give anyone any problems. Vert- makes it so if you play a widescreen version, then change to the 4:3, you usually really feel odd playing it (ie; usually it zooms out oddly - unless you play a higher resolution square monitor then your widescreen one!). I did feel odd when I first got a widescreen (16:10) for instance, playing some games 4:3 and some 16:10.

I'm going to see what the differences are like. I am sure I won't get the medical problems with differing FOV settings, but it'd be nice to see what differences it makes. Its their design decision, but like resolution, it should be optional to expand the view (for instance, many people prefer 90degrees compared to this games default 75 degrees, since that is a standard in more games).

Anyway, its a popular game, but people have paid for it, and because this isn't the standard way of doing it people would prefer the option

 

[spengler [deprecated]]

I'm amazed that people continue to talk about this; of all the complaints with Bioshock, this one seems the most irrational (ha-ha).

It would be impossible to display the same image on a 16:9 and 4:3 screen. So the choices are, stretch/distort/black-bar one image, or, don't. They (2K/Irrational) went with "don't". If you choose to not distort one image, then this means that the field of view is going to be somewhat different on the two different displays. So, you see a little more of the gun you're carrying on a 4:3 display. If you "fix" this by showing more of the gun on the 16:9 display, then you have either also changed the 4:3 image (resulting in even MORE vertical room on the 4:3 - and so this becomes an oroborus of sorts), or you have changed the angle of view / FOV on the 16:9 image (resulting in a distortion of one of the images, or a different angle of view between 4:3 and 16:9).

The standard has usually been Hor+ because of the technical issues involved in Vert- (as shown here). Usually what designers do is make everything visible in 4:3, then add on extra space for widescreen afterwards.

That would be the "normal" thing to do, but I don't think it would have quelled any of the ranting that people have done about this, since it's still a "difference" between the two images, and people seem hell-bent on griping about minor* issues with this title. Given what's been said on this issue by the dev, and the amount of time this game was in incubation, I'd be more than slightly surprised if they hadn't tried every conceivable way of cutting the image, and deciding this was the most advantageous. I'm willing to take them at their word that they developed for 16:9 and figured out how to best make a 4:3 image after the fact, because the FOV works so well in 16:9. Yeah, it's a bit claustrophobic - which is historically every thing they have wanted to do (System Shock and Shock2 were both nauseatingly claustrophobic, which went a long ways towards making them as scary as they were.)

s I mentioned before, according to the devs, they're not doing an squashing/stretching to get the effect in question.

According to my eyes, either. This isn't rocket science. I've linked a pretty good screenshot a bit down the page.

I think that point regarding Levine's comment is THE crux-pin of this situation. Simply because of that one phrase, there's a lot of people complaining that wouldn't otherwise be. Without that statement, there would be zero backbone to the conversation I feel.

I think you're right, but it just underscores the stupidity of the masses.
http://wsgfmedia.com/uploads/paddywak/screenshots/bioshock/BioshockFOV.jpg

I think that image shows exactly what's going on between 4:3 and 16:9, so simply and obviously, that I begin to get serious headaches as people debate this "issue" ad naseum. Clearly there is no distortion or magical non-euclidian "Projection Matrix" in play. 4:3 gets more vertical space because (4/3) < (16/9). 16:9 gets more horizon... well, you get my point. This is all simple math, and anyone who passed their highschool geometry class should not have any problem looking at the information available to them and arriving at this same conclusion.

Perhaps that explains why so much of the fear, uncertainty and doubt on this issue is being expressed on the 2k forums in middle school language and usage.

*excepting issues about the ludicrous DRM, which I agree with despite having some sympathy towards devs who just don't want their game to hit USENET within a day of release.

 

[Andrew Armstrong]

They've said they'll be patching both versions to allow an option to increase the FOV, according to their homepage: http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/home.html

I'm glad they will patch it and allow people to simply choose, and solve any possible motion problems and visual problems.

Oh, and I agree, the DRM issue is a bit more problematic and causes a lot of issues for people who buy the game, but this isn't a thread about the DRM on the game (heh, their installation server even went down so the homepage says, ironically stopping anyone with a legal copy installing it at the time, heh).