BioShock 2 Blows Widescreen Support
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't care much about this problem, considering there are many, many others. Sound clipping, super lag in menus, those are the ones I've gotten. Others' have experienced serious crashing from almost everything they do.
I was wondering why the graphics looked off. The textures look less high resolution too (I'm pretty sure I'm playing with everything on high), but hopefully that's because of this. I don't really care too much, but if it makes the game look better (he said they stretched it a bit to make it work), then I'm all for an update.
I'm mostly wanting an update about the other problems but...
I was wondering why the graphics looked off. The textures look less high resolution too (I'm pretty sure I'm playing with everything on high), but hopefully that's because of this. I don't really care too much, but if it makes the game look better (he said they stretched it a bit to make it work), then I'm all for an update.
I'm mostly wanting an update about the other problems but...
From the 2K Forums
Originally Posted by Korban
FOV 90 [http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/3886/45257075.png]
Originally Posted by Korban
Example bind
Default [http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/526/46560449.png]
FOV 90 [http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/3886/45257075.png]
Almost all PC gamers have widescreen monitors these days, surely?
I play on a 16:9 monitor in 1920x1080 and anything that can't be played in my native resolution is very stretched and bleh. Luckily if I select a slightly lesser resolution it usually just puts black borders around the rest of the screen instead of stretching it out to fit my monitor (which is better in my opinion because then there's no loss of quality, my viewpoint is just smaller)
I remember around 2006, I had a widescreen monitor back then and I was wishing I didn't have one, simply because hardly any games seemed to support the resolution. These days EVERY game supports widescreen, so Bioshock 2 not having it properly is kind of lazy, especially because the console versions do. And different resolutions and FOV are NOT hard to implement.
Luckily the fix is on the way so I'm not fussed about it (and wont be buying the game for a little while anyway)
I play on a 16:9 monitor in 1920x1080 and anything that can't be played in my native resolution is very stretched and bleh. Luckily if I select a slightly lesser resolution it usually just puts black borders around the rest of the screen instead of stretching it out to fit my monitor (which is better in my opinion because then there's no loss of quality, my viewpoint is just smaller)
I remember around 2006, I had a widescreen monitor back then and I was wishing I didn't have one, simply because hardly any games seemed to support the resolution. These days EVERY game supports widescreen, so Bioshock 2 not having it properly is kind of lazy, especially because the console versions do. And different resolutions and FOV are NOT hard to implement.
Luckily the fix is on the way so I'm not fussed about it (and wont be buying the game for a little while anyway)
I agree. Looking at that image, I think I'd be annoyed if they did it any other way -- that approach seems perfect. The only potential issue is if there's a cutscene or other fixed-camera moment that requires the full top/bottom view, but that seems unlikely.Brok3n Halo said:Actually I think that was a good decision on how to adjust for widescreen, it keeps the area of the screen that actually matters to gameplay larger giving you a more detailed view. The only thing you gain from a "fix" is being able to see slightly more above and below you (useless angles 90% of the time) and the actually relevant front and center area being smaller.hansari said:
I bought mine at retail and thus far haven't had to enter my serial at all. GFWL auto-set itself to an "offline" profile (which still seems to work with achievements), and I haven't tried the multiplayer.Brok3n Halo said:
Sigh. This wasn't broken in the first game, and it isn't broken here. Most likely the developers just thought perhaps they'd be spared the nonsense this time through.
From the original article:
"BioShock 2 crops the top and bottom of images and then stretches the result to make the visuals appear wide"
The article means to say "scales" when it says "strecthes" above, which makes it sounds much worse than it is. Distorting the aspect ratio would be bad. That isn't happening.
The entire "problem" if you can even call it that lies with which aspect ratio you see as your default and whether you want to maintain a constant FOV regardless of aspect ratio or not.
If you consider 16:9 or 16:10 to be standard, and the FOV you present at that aspect ratio is the one you want, then 4:3 games get a wider vertical FOV (which, gameplay-wise, is probably far less significant than the constant horizontal FOV).
This is the way the first game was before the "fix".
The complaint comes not from the developer treating widescreen gamers as second class or having failed to put in any effort to consider them; far from it. In fact, they are considered the target market.
The complaint is because people who have purchased such a TV or monitor wish to consider themselves a higher class of client. They want the 4:3 gamer considered the default, and themselves considered as superior-- in this case, by receiving a wider field of view. They don't seem to feel that their widescreen purchase was worth the investment if they aren't seeing MORE than those using 4:3 screens.
The developers of Bioshock had an artistic vision for how they wanted the game to look, and that included a constant FOV to frame the environment the way they wanted and for that presentation to be consistent across all displays regardless of aspect ratio: in other words, to NOT treat 4:3 gamers as second-class citizens by not giving them as wide a field of view as widescreen gamers.
That's to say nothing about such a use in an online game where FOV and peripheral vision grant an advantage to players with a wider FOV. Not an issue with Bioshock 1 since it had no multiplayer, but Bioshock 2 does.
From the original article:
"BioShock 2 crops the top and bottom of images and then stretches the result to make the visuals appear wide"
The article means to say "scales" when it says "strecthes" above, which makes it sounds much worse than it is. Distorting the aspect ratio would be bad. That isn't happening.
The entire "problem" if you can even call it that lies with which aspect ratio you see as your default and whether you want to maintain a constant FOV regardless of aspect ratio or not.
If you consider 16:9 or 16:10 to be standard, and the FOV you present at that aspect ratio is the one you want, then 4:3 games get a wider vertical FOV (which, gameplay-wise, is probably far less significant than the constant horizontal FOV).
This is the way the first game was before the "fix".
The complaint comes not from the developer treating widescreen gamers as second class or having failed to put in any effort to consider them; far from it. In fact, they are considered the target market.
The complaint is because people who have purchased such a TV or monitor wish to consider themselves a higher class of client. They want the 4:3 gamer considered the default, and themselves considered as superior-- in this case, by receiving a wider field of view. They don't seem to feel that their widescreen purchase was worth the investment if they aren't seeing MORE than those using 4:3 screens.
The developers of Bioshock had an artistic vision for how they wanted the game to look, and that included a constant FOV to frame the environment the way they wanted and for that presentation to be consistent across all displays regardless of aspect ratio: in other words, to NOT treat 4:3 gamers as second-class citizens by not giving them as wide a field of view as widescreen gamers.
That's to say nothing about such a use in an online game where FOV and peripheral vision grant an advantage to players with a wider FOV. Not an issue with Bioshock 1 since it had no multiplayer, but Bioshock 2 does.
If I look at the image posted here, this is a complete non-issue. No, even worse, 2K actually did an awesome job and people are complaining. They have coded a way so that all aspect ratio's get a similar framing of the scene, slightly favouring either their width or height, depending on the ratio played at. It means they can guarantee a similar experience for all monitors used. It appears they are using some constant 'diagonal fov' that is rotated depending on the aspect?
Now WHY are people complaining again?
Now WHY are people complaining again?
It's not so a big playing on a normal windscreen but on anything wider it becomes a serious issue. Try an eyefinity or triple-head to go system and it's a completely unplayable game.
Using that comparison image I can only see from the tip of the drill to the top of the signs wings in height. the extra width is completely useless when all I can see is a creatures midriff.
Yes it's a small amount of gamers but it shows a serious flaw in this presentation manner. By using Hor+ it wouldn't matter how wide a players monitor is the game still looks good.
Try looking at the examples here to see.
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=18382&hilit=bioshock
Using that comparison image I can only see from the tip of the drill to the top of the signs wings in height. the extra width is completely useless when all I can see is a creatures midriff.
Yes it's a small amount of gamers but it shows a serious flaw in this presentation manner. By using Hor+ it wouldn't matter how wide a players monitor is the game still looks good.
Try looking at the examples here to see.
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=18382&hilit=bioshock
It's JUST a PC issue? Sounds like they don't give a damn about PC version. Why did you release it then? I had my doubts about purchasing this because of limited installations thingy but now I'm 100% sure they wont get my money.
For HD it probably sucks with the cropping even more. Standard is 1:1 aspect ratio. 4:3 is widescreen, and HD resolutions are 16:9jamesworkshop said:
1:1?benoitowns said:
Who the heck uses a 1:1 display? Who even makes one?
Bioshock doesn't LACK anything. It's just refusing to stroke widescreen display buyers by ensuring that the game enables a wider field of view on widescreen displays. From a technical and aesthetic perspective, that's the right decision to make if one is considering widescreen your standard format and 4:3 an ancillary market.
That's odd. Haven't had any problem on my widescreen monitor.
In fact, I think I'll go dive back into rapture right now.
In fact, I think I'll go dive back into rapture right now.
I don't recall the exact issues, but if you look through the steam forums you'll spot a number of people having issues with dx 10 (and perhaps nvidia cards? I'm too tired to look it up right now). As for key bindings, using "ctrl" for "Medkit," rather than "crouch," is rahter annoying.Brok3n Halo said:
These problems aside, I still not enjoying BS2 nearly as much as I did the first game. Bioshock was great. Bioshock 2 is... OK.
Edit: Oh, and "F" instead of "E" bound to "Use" was an odd choice, when "E" is a standard. I could be wrong, but I think I recall the first game using "E..." Either way, it feels that 2K doesn't have a good grasp of FPS conventions, or are just doing things differently for the hell of it.