"Simulating" a lens in a 3D game engine = playing with the FOV and camera. They aren't actually simulating the optics and how the light interacts with a lense.
-
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
"Simulating" a lens in a 3D game engine = playing with the FOV and camera. They aren't actually simulating the optics and how the light interacts with a lense.
In terms of performance? Sure a higher FOV increases the amount of geometry on-screen in a single frame. I think if they were to go to 16:9 they would decrease the FOV, but I disagree that 1080p wouldn't be possible with a FOV of 75 if that's what they wanted to do.
anexanhume
Member
It increases the amount of objects on the screen, but they are also drawn smaller. With dynamic detail techniques, I wonder what the relationship with FOV and frame rate is.
You might argue that effect such as lens flares, bokeh with different shapes and chormatic abberrations (brr) are obtained by simulating a lense.
Admiral Woofington
Member
Yeah. It seems like it might've turned into a shitstorm but it's not the first game to do this. Was there as big of a scandal when Dragon's Dogma did the black bars?
In my experience it's pretty negligible. You might lose a frame or two going to the pc standard of 90 from the console standard of 60-75.
funkystudent
Member
Sometimes "creative vision" can be wrong or at odds with what people actually want. Not a big deal. It happens. Look no further then the xbox one last year as a creative vision people also didnt care for.
If people have a issue with it like it seems they do maybe they should at least have a full screen setting.
You can't cater to everybody, though. I think it's different between an entire platform not catering to the majority and a game's aspect ratio not catering to the majority (if the majority is even the case). They decided on 2:40:1 aspect ratio, and because of that, it allowed them to make the game look better than it would have in 16:9 due to the freed up resources. In your scenario, they would have to either make the graphics worse for you to have the option, or have the current graphics while in 2:40:1, and significantly decreased graphics in 16:9, which I don't think a lot of people would appreciate.
WeAreStarStuff
Member
I feel bad for any members of the Dev team that are going through this thread.
Can Crusher
Banned
Or maybe they should just act like they are catering to a mature audience and not to a bunch of whiny children. People who can't handle black bars should be ignored pronto.
An even more insufferable complain than "Can't watch movies with subtitles".
funkystudent
Member
I don't think its whiny for people to want a game made for the TV screens they own and I think its a stupid move on the developers part to do it.
Then again maybe Sony some new 2:40:1 TV coming out and this is all part of the marketing push.
Can Crusher
Banned
Well RAD isn't trying to sell anybody on some blurry upscale trick here, so the game is in fact made for the T.Vs these so called "people" own.
I'm sure that people who don't suffer from black barphobia will let their brains get the message RAD is trying to go for here, "It looks like a movie.". And it will work too if the game looks as good as they've shown thus far.
By that logic, about every last gen game and even a bunch of XB1 games weren't made for my TV screen, which is 1080p. I'd rather have native resolution with a wider screen than an upscaled game.
They didn't have to make the choice between 4xMSAA and 1080p. The made a game that has a 2:40:1 aspect ratio and that allowed, among other things, 4xMSAA.
That's a bad example. You are comparing decisions made by a corporation to decisions made by an artist. I don't want to derail this thread by claiming "Game is art", but you should know the difference between a piece of hardware and a video game. The extent to which we should influence its development isn't comparable.
GamingIsDead
Member
You're quite confused. Aspect ratios and resolutions are completely different. Infact there are some plasmas that have 4:3 pixel ratios (1024x768) that are still 16:9 due too rectangular pixels.
The only thing I'm confused about is your post. A 720p game is not "made" for my 1080p TV, because it has to has to be upscaled. A letterboxed 1080p game is closer to being "made" for my 1080p TV than an upscaled game is. At least it's a one-to-one pixel match.
FinalStageBoss
Banned
People will bitch and cry no matter what they do, because you cant please everyone.
I say Ignore the whiners and do whatever the fuck they think is right for their game.
There's nothing wrong with black bars. RAD made the call from a very early point to go with a wider aspect ratio for the artistic effect. It's no different from adding motion blur, depth of field, chromatic aberration, or film grain. Some people like those effects and some don't. It just so happens that moving to a wider aspect ratio afforded them the ability to add in 4x MSAA. The black bars are not a consequence of MSAA.
GamingIsDead
Member
Right but those only existed because of technical limitations and not because of some misguided artistic approach. Here there is clearly enough power to obtain full screen resolution with out any major loss in fidelity.
vpance
Member
Guaranteed 4x MSAA is never misguided. Rendering more ceiling and floor with worse jaggies however would be.
How can you call an artistic decision misguided? You haven't even seen the game in motion, let alone played it.
Liabe Brave
Member
To me, the most fascinating thing in all this is how quickly 16:9 has become sacrosanct to some people. It was chosen because it would minimize black bars (or cropping), but there was literally zero content available that would fill the screen (without cropping/zooming). All movies ever made to that point would have black bars of greater or lesser extent. This only changed with the rise of digital filming over the last decade.
The most infuriating thing is how entitled the "no black bars ever!" extremists are. Wanting particular products is a person's right; calling any divergence from your personal standards stupid, pointless, or bad is base narcissism. I don't think even they understand that steamrolling the creators' aesthetics will lead to mediocrity, even if you start with something so apparently minor. When traces of personality or idiosyncracy are derided, you end up with AAA games veering toward being an interchangeable commodity, like toilet paper or frozen concentrated orange juice.
TheRealTalker
Banned
I really don't see a problem hereMy vote goes to 4x MSAA . I had zero problems with letterboxing in games so far, and this looks more than fine:
looks sexy.... it is not the end of the world like some people claim it to be
got it thanks
Wrong. Many directors swear by 2:40:1, even though the technology is there to shoot in full 16:9. Why do you think films such as Skyfall or Django Unchained etc continue to be letterboxed? The directors prefer the framing and find it better for cinematography.
WolfForager
Member
This "black bars" argument is starting to reach Team Real vs Team CGI levels of ridiculousness.
http://www.stfuandplay.com/story/content/the-order-1866-new-details-story#.UvVYKbTcDw9
A lot of guys in this thread have random confidence claiming things.
CrichtonKicks
Member
Do you feel the same about movies shot in that ratio? Is it a stupid move on the director's part when they do it?
velociraptor
Junior Member
I prefer 2:40:1 movies myself.
GamingIsDead
Member
We are going in circles now please read some of the thread before posting. It's a third person shooter video game unless they unleash some new form of cinematography never seen before in a video game this is a dumb move, There are other options that don't shrink the screen size that you can do to obtain the same results.
Video games are a completely different medium and are not bound by the limitations of movies and go by a different set of rules and standards. The comparison makes zero sense for a game like this. 16:9 is the standard there is no reason not to follow it. To me they were better off with a arcade game if they wanted to do some wonky screen ratio.
Funnily enough, if they do release this game in 2:40:1 in the custom FOV they have, it will be a first for console gaming, so as far as games are concerned it will be a "new form of never before seem cinematography". Other console games have used this aspect ratio, but not designed from the ground up around it, or with the custom adapted wider 35mm mimicking FOV.
And it definitely does impact the overall cinematic look or framing of the scenes. Case in point...
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
The irony of this is movie screens don't get wider for scope ratio movies either. They cut off part of the screen just like a home tv, and no one complains about not seeing the full projection screen.
People are just going around in circles over this. The arguement will never end, just like the debate in the film industry has never ended. People just see things differently when it comes to aspect ratios.
Edit: also what Liabe Brave said.
Are you fucking kidding me? I've been in this thread since the beginning, just look at my post history. Hell, look at the past two pages to see some serious discussion about FOV vs aspect ratio and the benefits of using 2.40 for framing a composition. Do you know anything about photography/cinematography? Do you know anything about the game and why they would choose this aspect ratio? If not, please stop talking out of your ass and actually learn something. There are plenty of posts in this thread that will help. Making the comment that an artistic decision is "misguided" without even understanding why the decision was made is not only ignorant, but straight up disrespectful.
Fantastic post.
In the end, it's important consumers are allowed to freely make the decision about whether it's essential or not without being called whiners or bitchers.
These are all fans who just want games to be the best they can be, and they have their own ideas as to what that means. It's not malicious.
I think this particular discussion is a little misguided simply because the reasons for the choice have clearly defined goals and they haven't been remotely secretive about the ways they feel it is going to help both their cinematic approach and the gameplay. And given that this type of aspect ratio is not uncommon in cinema, I'd say we should all wait for more information - mainly, a real extensive in depth gameplay video - before drawing final judgments over whether the technique works for any of us
funkystudent
Member
Nope. Because movies are shot for movie theatre screens. It makes sense that there would be black bars when they are squeezed down to a TV screen that doesn't match that aspect ratio.
There is no similar logical justification here other then wanting to make it look arty and cool and to save some GPU cycles at the expense of the end user experience.
GamingIsDead
Member
Funnily enough, if they do release this game in 2:40:1 in the custom FOV they have, it will be a first for console gaming, so as far as games are concerned it will be a "new form of never before seem cinematography". Other console games have used this aspect ratio, but not designed from the ground up around it, or with the custom adapted wider 35mm mimicking FOV.
And it definitely does impact the overall cinematic look or framing of the scenes. Case in point...
The effect will immediately wear off once you start looking around the environment. Dramatic focal points could be controlled and forced with dynamic fov changes or even drop in black bars when it's appropriate to do so. Remember getting take downs in burnout it would switch to a fancy camera angle and new fov with black bars? Much more advanced stuff has been going on for years this is a step backwards.
Said the man who, like most of the rest of us, has literally not seen a single extended gameplay video or even one bit out of the many numerous ways in which RAD is reportedly breaking new ground on their cinematic approach.
Right now all we're waiting for is to see whether the veracity for these sorts of claims have any merit. Until then, making any proclamation like this is inherently absurd. We have absolutely no idea whether we've seen more advanced stuff than this, and no idea whether it's a step backwards or forwards.
Ya'll need to take a slight step back with how locked down your minds are before you even see the product. That's a recipe for guaranteed disappointment. I don't know whether it will be good or bad, and neither do you or anyone else.
You keep talking nonsense and it's clear you have a poor understanding of these things. How a momentary change in framing in a racing game compares to an entire game designed around 2:40:1 is beyond me. Earlier you said that the only reason films went with 2:40:1 was because of technical limitations, but this is factually incorrect. Google search director opinions of it. You can start with Sam Mendes and Skyfall, and why his preferred cut of the film is letterboxed, and his reasons for it. This aspect ratio is a well documented artistic preference for many working in cinema, film and even photography.
GamingIsDead
Member
My point is that you seem to be missing is that in a game like this you are controlling where the camera is facing losing the entire point of a aspect ratio like this. In a movie you can portray images in a exact manner with every carefully crafted camera angle and placement of everything in a scene. Almost all of that is lost in a game like this that not only allows you to look in any direction but move your character as welll. The benefit would only come from certain scenes where the camera would be forced to look in certain directions or cut scenes themselves, in these moments they could just dynamically switch to another fov and add the black bars if they wish.
CrichtonKicks
Member
Far more people will see a movie on a television than a movie screen though. What justification does a film director have for using 2:40:1 over 16:9 other than being "arty and cool"?
I really don't like much AA in my games, it just makes them harder to see with tired eyes. Is that an edge? Oh, it might be. I'll look harder. Yes. It's worse when the games are dark, I've always wished consoles had AA controls in the options so I could turn it down (or off).
This is again, not true. The cinematic framing is there whether you control the camera or not. Obviously the value of the framing is somewhat dictated by the gamer, but the framing benefits are not automatically lost simply because you're controlling the camera. That's absolutely silly. Especially given a certain aspect of the level design, field of view, distance from the player, the art direction, object, character, structure and camera placement etc can still all be designed to suit the framing.
I'd imagine most gamers would also be quite astute with their camera control to get the best from any given scenario instead of intentionally using obtuse camera control at the expensive of gameplay ease or more suitable angles.
Can Crusher
Banned
I guess something I WOULD like to know is why people care about black bars in this game FAR more than in any other game in the HISTORY of the medium? Why this game? WHY is it so big of a deal? This situation with black bars feels like it should be the least important aspect of this entire game.