anexanhume
Member
Lawd. Just watch a pixar movie.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Order 1886 runs 4xMSAA; 1920x800 vs 1920x1080 "not set in stone yet"
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
Lawd. Just watch a pixar movie.
Do you see more horizontal detail in this comparison gif with the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen?
i think his point is that you can get rid of the black bars in the FOV 75 shot and it will still have the same horizontal detail
EmptySpace
Banned
That's based on the FOV. You can achieve the same horizontal detail at 16:9 vs 2.4 using the same FOV, but 16:9 also adds vertical detail which, depending on your artistic vision, can be detrimental to the framing of the image. If you look at the full post earlier in the thread, there's a comparison of 16:9 at FOV 75 which has much more floor and sky, which lessens the impact of the image IMO.
supernormal
Member
I loled
Haha!
I think like you said, if you pulled the camera out further in order to get a 16x9 shot with the same horizontal detail but more vertical detail, you'd end up changing the feel of things, like you said. I think it comes back to their artistic vision, like they've said. Given that they've mentioned filmic and cinematic multiple times, it doesn't shock me that they've gone in this direction.
anexanhume
Member
It will also have an affect on the action, particularly if there are enemies that tend to come from above or jump out of view. Could definitely make for a more frantic environment. I'm neither looking forward to it nor dreading it. I'm just curious what the gameplay will be like.
You could still use a 75 degree FoV without the black bars, though it would be a little more distorted near the top and bottom.
Krusenstern
Banned
yankeehater
Member
Yeah. The co-op and mp was what made Gears 1 so big.
Absolutely. That's one of the main reasons I was a bit worried about them changing the aspect ratio. The game has been built from the ground up based on 2.4:1, so naturally the enemy encounters will be considered in that as well. I want to play the game RAD wanted to make, not the game that everyone thinks they want to play.
Bornstellar
Member
Now imagine that the full 16-9 image used a 75 degree FOV.
I get that it's possible to do that, but it would change focus from being more on a horizontal plane to a more standard look. It's not my game so I don't really have to stick up for it, but the whole "artistic vision" thing seems to be what this comes back to.
Good visual explanation that gets at what I was trying to communicate. Thanks.
anexanhume
Member
Because that's not the debate.
That entirely depends on the field of view.
Let me explain what 16:9 actually actually means for the people that have issue with the black bars are talking about. They want that extra vertical space to be used up.
Note none of the horizontal details went away.
because the pointless circular debate going on is whether they save fillrate as a result of the design decision to have a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, or whether they have a 2.35:1 aspect ratio to save fillrate. Obviously nobody knows why - the devs have said it was a design decision yet still plenty of people are falling barely short of calling them liars.
obviously they do save something because they aren't drawing the entire screen.
Let me explain what 16:9 actually actually means in that case. This is what the people who have issue with the black bars are talking about. They want that extra vertical space to be used up.
Note none of the horizontal details went away.
Funny thing is aspect ratio doesn't work that way and you will just see lens distortion and what devs not intended for you to see.
Is it that hard to understand the game is DESIGNED for 2.4:1 aspect ratio from ground up, i.e. all the combat encounter, all the non-cinematic cutscene (half-life moments), all the interaction, need to be reworked, if they want to re-aim for 16:9.
And OF COURSE field of view is something developers of a shooter can change anytime without impact their game and level design. Why didn't I see things simple like that?
Bornstellar
Member
No, that's bollocks. You are reducing the FOV in the "actual" 16-9.
Read my previous posts, I'm fine with 2.4:1 because it's what it's being designed around. Your example was flawed, that is all. My image was there to show that 16:9 is still possible while retaining just as much horizontal information.
but don't a lot of PC gamers manually fiddle with the FOV all the time?
Because fiddling with FOV and extremely high fps is the closest thing you to cheat without actually cheating in competitive shooters. (I got my fair shares of competitive Quake 123 back in school days.)
For a game emphasizing mood and cinematic look and feel, fov like this is weird.
I think they were doomed the moment they said "cinematic".
I they said something like "we're using this aspect ratio because we like it" nobody would have complained.
lBarack Lesnar
Banned
I would have been happy with a meaty horde mode. The trailer kind of hinted at a horde mode with the four of them getting swarmed by the werewolves. A lot of games have horde modes. I can't imagine they're that hard to add. It should be a lot less dev time then a set of full multi-player modes and all that entails. (-.-)\\ Sad face
I don't think they definitely ruled it out, they just said no multiplayer. Could still be co-op modes.
For anyone who is having trouble comprehending the argument of how a wider aspect ratio enhances FOV, try this.
I'm assuming many of you are sitting in front of your PC monitors. Most likely a 16:9 screen.
Lean closer to your screen until you can no longer see, staring straight forward out of the corner of your eyes, the left and right edges of the monitor. Keep going. Keep going. And keep going.
How far to the top and bottom are you able to see without moving your eyes?
I'm assuming many of you are sitting in front of your PC monitors. Most likely a 16:9 screen.
Lean closer to your screen until you can no longer see, staring straight forward out of the corner of your eyes, the left and right edges of the monitor. Keep going. Keep going. And keep going.
How far to the top and bottom are you able to see without moving your eyes?
I do believe now that they chose the aspect ratio first, and are now taking advantage of the extra performance in other places.
But this is a misguided and rather asinine decision to make. To add black bars to a 16:9 TV screen because when you play some movies on said TV that were meant to be played on a 2.40:1 movie screen, black bars obvisouly must appear... it's just ridiculous.
No one WANTS black bars on their TV when watching a movie. It's an aberration caused by the different screen formats. If TV's had screens that automagically grew wider to accommodate the aspect ratio of the content, EVERYONE would use that feature.
It's like saying: "Hey! I know! instead of having 7.1 surround sound, let's only have 2.1! Because people without 7.1 systems at home want to truly feel immersed by exactly replicating the inferior experience of listening to a movie on their speakers at home vs the sound system at a movie theater!"
Yeah, ok.
If everyone had 2.40:1 aspect ratio screens at home, this would make sense.
But this is a misguided and rather asinine decision to make. To add black bars to a 16:9 TV screen because when you play some movies on said TV that were meant to be played on a 2.40:1 movie screen, black bars obvisouly must appear... it's just ridiculous.
No one WANTS black bars on their TV when watching a movie. It's an aberration caused by the different screen formats. If TV's had screens that automagically grew wider to accommodate the aspect ratio of the content, EVERYONE would use that feature.
It's like saying: "Hey! I know! instead of having 7.1 surround sound, let's only have 2.1! Because people without 7.1 systems at home want to truly feel immersed by exactly replicating the inferior experience of listening to a movie on their speakers at home vs the sound system at a movie theater!"
Yeah, ok.
If everyone had 2.40:1 aspect ratio screens at home, this would make sense.
supernormal
Member
This actually the best explanation. Especially since the devs talk about having the game render through lenses and such. 2.40:1 is achieved through anamorphic lenses which actually capture a much larger image horizontally vs a just a regular wide angle lens which increases the field of view both vertically and horizontally into the 16:9 ratio. The 2.40:1 ends up being a bigger image than what actually fits into 16:9 space, so it must be squeezed into the smaller space while still keeping the wide aspect ratio hence leaving some vertical space of the 16:9 box unused. The term black bars irks me a bit because it makes it seem like it's black bars overlaid on top of the image when in reality it's more like blank space behind the image.
phosphor112
Banned
Of course, but the drop in overall resolution can allow the higher FOV.
16:9 1080p with 75 fov > 2.4:1 800p with 75.
But because we can't have our cake and eat it too:
16:9 1080p with 55 fov < 2.4:1 800p with 75.
Uhm, no.
PC gamers like higher FOV because:
1. We are much closer to the screen and we can both see more detail and have more peripheral real estate to work with. I literally get sick playing games at console FOV settings on my monitor. A lot of people wiht the same issue I know, switched ot PC gaming where motion sickeness can be helped immensily by higher frame rates and higher FOV.
2. It's more immersive.
3. It's more natural. That 60-75 FOV is tremedously claustrophobic.
4. Our rigs cna handle it. Larger FOV of course means more objects on screen. Our rigs ar eok with that... last gen consoles, not so much.
I never said it was simple. Your argument was completely flawed because it assumes that if they want for 16:9 they would have just cut off the sides, which they obviously wouldn't do. It's exactly as dumb as saying that to get it 2:40:1, they had to cut off the top and bottom of the image (which, again, obviously isn't the case).
That being said, I'm glad they're doing 2:40:1, although I think the FOV seems too low from the screenshots we've seen.
They aren't trying to create a "Cinematic" experience.
They are forcing on you a "I'm watching a movie meant to be played on a much wider screen on a much narrower one" experience.
Just to be clear, anyone playing a game that supported an ultra wide aspect ratio would probably have a great experience. Something like this:
http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/24-005-396-TS?$S300$
That would be awesome.
They are forcing on you a "I'm watching a movie meant to be played on a much wider screen on a much narrower one" experience.
Just to be clear, anyone playing a game that supported an ultra wide aspect ratio would probably have a great experience. Something like this:
http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/24-005-396-TS?$S300$
That would be awesome.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
High fov is not more natural looking at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT2wIFX1EYo
You're compressing a wide space into a small screen in front of you creating some kind of fish eye distortion on everything. It makes sense when playing competitively, but it's off putting visually and completely unnatural looking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT2wIFX1EYo
You're compressing a wide space into a small screen in front of you creating some kind of fish eye distortion on everything. It makes sense when playing competitively, but it's off putting visually and completely unnatural looking.
Admiral Woofington
Member
I gotta be honest I haven't seen so many complaints on an aspect ratio for a game before. You'd think the dev did the game with a vertical camera or something. I'm more concerned on whether it looks good and plays well. And 1080p might not happen but it wasn't designed for that, so if it still looks crisp and plays well PLUS it was designed with this aspect ratio what's the big deal? It's one game, give it a try. If it doesn't do well obviously their experiment failed for many reasons, one which could be this. I would love to see gameplay or actual footage besides an E3 20 second trailer before I start complaining on what is best for the game or not
Well, yeah, with the really high FOVs - I don't like those either, but that doesn't mean you have to have a really low FOV just to minimize the distortion. I feel that the FOV is TOO low in the screenshots we have. But it looks GREAT in this piece of concept art:
As apposed to this:
However, I wouldn't mind seeing something like a lower FOV in indoor environments, like with that screenshot above, and then a higher one in outdoor environments, like the concept art.
PolarGamer
Member
Yeah. Well. Easy for you to say.
funkystudent
Member
I would still rather have a big full screen image instead of seeing a extra few inches on the corners of the screen.
I can just imagine the HUD being a tiny unreadable mess in a letterboxed game as well.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
You only get fish eye when you turn it up to something ridiculously high like that
Normal people use 90 FOV
GamingIsDead
Member
When you put your fov that high of course it going to look dumb, at most this change would have a few degrees of fov change not 120 fov fisheye. Alan wake was MUCH more enjoyable while still being 'cinematic' on pc with being able to have a higher fov.
Nope. There is no fish eye distortion so long as the FOV isn't set too high for the width of your screen and the distance you are form that screen.
About 90 is really nice on a 27" 1440p 16:9 monitor when youa re sitting 2-3 feet from it. Think about it. At that distance, those 27" take up a MUCH, MUCH larger FOV than your 50" TV from 8+ feet.
With an ultra wide monitor, or a 3 monitor setup, even higher FOV's work great as well.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
Lordy! This comment is gold plated.
You only get fish eye when you turn it up to something ridiculously high like that
Normal people use 90 FOV
If 1886 uses a simluated 35mm anamorphic lens then it means it's about same FOV as a 18mm spherical lens (around 90). And they added lens distortion to "correct" the distorted horizontal view like a real anamorphic lens, thus causing the illusion of low FOV because the perspective is not as harsh as the high FOVs in older games. Switching lens between 35mm-50mm-70mm should be probable depending on the size of environment.