• 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 is rendering in 2.40:1 ratio (1920x800), will this be a trend?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Majanew

Banned
N2NOther said:
No, it isn't. Your screen is actually as it always is. The ratio of the image is wider than your TV.

If you enlarge the image to fit your screen then the image is going to be cut off on the top and bottom. This is simple math.
Click to expand...

Holy shit. Sigh

If parts of my screen are not displaying an image, then yes, parts of the screen are being cut off because... there is no image there. That means my tv's entire screen is not being filled up with an image. Means... parts of the screen is being cut off. Pretty simple to follow, really. Easier for you?
 
NekoFever

NekoFever

Member
Majanew said:
The same all around. 2.4:1 (or whatever would be chosen as the standard) for theaters and HDTV's. Then guess what... no more black bars and you get a little extra space on the side for part of a tree that adds to your cinema experience. Win-win for both parties.
Click to expand...

But directors want to choose their aspect ratio for artistic reasons, not because there's a standard.

The Artist was shot in 1.33:1 despite that being a very uncommon cinematic ratio today because it was an homage to the silent films of the 20s.

Epics and action movies are shot in 2.35:1 or thereabouts because it's interpreted as looking more impressive since it's closer to the aspect ratio we see in, and it emphasises the panoramic views.

Meanwhile Jurassic Park, which should have been a shoo-in for a wide ratio, was shot in 1.85:1 because Spielberg wanted to emphasise the height of the dinosaurs rather than the vistas.

See? Artistic choice. A standard is going to ruin that.
 
P

Perkel

Banned
Fuck this bullshit.
Dragons Dogma already was fucking shit because of that ( black bars). Annoyed me as hell.


No ORDER for me then and any game that will use that.


HEY DEVELOPERS IT IS FUCKING BULLSHIT
 
D

drugstore_cowboy

Member
Nikhil said:
Except gameplay and film have completely different cinematic requirements. In a film, you're looking only at what the director wants you to see. In a game, you need to be aware of your surroundings and able to easily see what's around you, and the narrower resolution makes that more difficult.
Click to expand...

You would no doubt be gaining a wider field of view, if anything there'd be more to see.
 
C

captscience

Member
RoboPlato said:
Whether or not it works well is something that I'll have to see in game. Not sure how I feel about it. The HUD and black bars in the Dragon's Dogma demos made the game feel way too cluttered for me.
Click to expand...

It might be interesting if RAD put the HUD in the black bar space and provide a totally uncluttered gameplay space.
 
B

Beer Monkey

Member
VibratingDonkey said:
All I'm trying to say is I don't like black bars, regardless of what I'm watching, or where. I know there are reasons for them, still don't like them. Even though it's not the case, it makes it feel like you've got blinders on.
Click to expand...

If you see the 'black bars', get a TV with a proper black level. On my Pioneer Kuro, you can't even tell the 'black bars' from the bezel.
 
-COOLIO-

-COOLIO-

The Everyman
Mister D said:
I think what you're failing to see here is that yes this could just be a stylistic choice but it is a wholly unnecessary one given the interactive nature of games. Unless they are going to lock the camera movement and not allow the player to move around the environment and create their own framing which I guess could be possible but for a game with shooter elements seems highly unlikely.

Films can use different aspect ratios because in the end what the viewer sees is totally controlled by the director and cinematographer. You can't pan the scene in Porky's to focus on the hot chick on the left's bush instead of being blocked by the fat girl in the shower scene. You can do that in games. So reducing the viewable area for some idea of scene composition that will be rendered moot the moment the player swings the right analog stick is a fool's errand and a waste of viewable real estate.

I'll wait and see what the end result is with this game but as someone who hates fixed cameras in games I don't have much hope that this will be something I'll be willing to tolerate unless the game is exceptional. And if they do allow the player to freely move the camera then all their framing and scene composition posturing goes out the door as the pretentious horseshit I feel it is as the only scenes they will be in full control of are cutscenes which in that case they could just continue the annoying trend of changing the aspect ratio in only the cutscenes as some games currently do because they feel it's more cinematic.
Click to expand...

what i'm waiting for is for someone to highlight how this could be anything other than a stylistic choice. this could have nothing to do with framing the shot and still be a stylistic choice. here's why they miiight have chose 2.4:1:

- less pixels means that more can be rendered
- to emulate the feel of watching a movie on a 16:9
- they actually do want to have the framing power (or whatever they might be called in film school) of 2.4:1 to frame their action in

the only non stylistic reason for not picking 1080 that i can think of:

- they dont know how to render in 1080

what else might there be?

edit: and whether or not any of those reasons is unnecessary is up for the individual to decide.
 
M

mcfrank

Member
The lower resolution argument kind of falls apart too because pixel density is what matters. You are getting the same pixel density as 1080p, you are just getting some of the image covered for artistic reasons. Who cares.
 
Goldrusher

Goldrusher

Member
to1886qkstp.png
 
-COOLIO-

-COOLIO-

The Everyman
puebla said:
bruh wtf are you talking about? did u just hit the trippy stick?
Click to expand...

i meant if you're making artwork digitally you'll probably save an original copy of it at an obscenely high resolution for prints even though it technically exceeds the size of the canvas. yeah, ok that's a weird one. but to answer the dudes original question, yeah they're are artists that don't use the entire canvas.
 
T

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
N2NOther said:
I'm actually shocked. I can't believe I'm reading the same nonsense now that I had to vehemently argue against when Widescreen was introduced to 4:3 screens.

Which was over 18 years ago.
Click to expand...

The framing of movies is what it is. The aspect ratios of displays are arbitrary. In order to preserve the original framing, bars are sometimes needed, (above and below or on the sides) depending on the movie and the display.
That's not remotely the same thing we're talking about here.
 
T

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
So basically instead of rendering at 'sub-HD' and then scaling up, they'll just render it at sub-HD and leave it that way.
 
Apocryphon

Apocryphon

Member
I dunno. I don't really like the idea of limiting vertical screen real-estate in a shooter regardless of how cinematic they want it to be.
 
A

aceldama

Banned
Biiiiiig mistake. And quit trying to compare movies and video games and that "cinematic feel" in video games. It's bullshit. They are different mediums.
 
P

Perkel

Banned
So logical conclusion will be 24FPS because : fuck videogames ?


Hey RAD. How about:

1920x1080@60FPS, vsync, with at least 4xaa and 16xAF ? Sure that isn't cinematic but at least plays well...
 
M

Mister D

Member
-COOLIO- said:
what i'm waiting for is for someone to highlight how this could be anything other than a stylistic choice. this could have nothing to do with framing the shot and still be a stylistic choice. here's why they miiight have chose 2.4:1:

- less pixels means that more can be rendered
- to emulate the feel of watching a movie on a 16:9
- they actually do want to have the framing power (or whatever they might be called in film school) of 2.4:1 to frame their action in

the only non stylistic reason for not picking 1080 that i can think of:

- they dont know how to render in 1080

what else might there be?
Click to expand...

I'm personally not arguing that this is anything other than a stylistic choice. I just think it is an exceptionally stupid one given the interactive nature of games. Any technical reasons they are doing this are of no concern to me really. I just think it is dumb to reduce the viewing area on HDTVs when there is a standard aspect ratio used by games unlike cinema where the director and cinematographer completely control the end result that the viewer sees.

If I am running around in the environment they create and aiming and freely moving the camera then any sort of composition they are going for outside of cutscenes is lost. Yes the horizontal field of vision will improve but the lost height will result in a net negative in viewing area since widening the horizontal FOV is usually not done at the expense of vertical FOV.
 
C

captscience

Member
godelsmetric said:
So basically instead of rendering at 'sub-HD' and then scaling up, they'll just render it at sub-HD and leave it that way.
Click to expand...

Yup. Which is exactly why nobody should be arguing whether or not it's an artistic choice.
Even if they are technically deficient or people think the PS4 is underpowered, RAD is still making the artistic decision to frame the game in a wider aspect ratio.

The argument should be about gameplay implications and aesthetics.
 
L

LastNac

Member
babyghost853 said:
Just tweeted them to let them know they can keep it, I refuse to buy a single game with that ratio.
Click to expand...
Get over yourself and stop whinnying.

If it isn't for you it isn't for you. I like the fact that devs are using different styles.

Sit this one out and stop trying to make such a big fuss about it. Don't ruin it for everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Order: 1886 |OT| Gears of Yore
156 157 158 159 160
8K
825K
ty_hot replied
All PS4 Pro enhanced games (native support and boosted)
58 59 60 61 62
3K
1M
Toe-Knee replied
The Order: 1886 - Preview Thread
2 3 4
181
22K
Allonym replied
Face-Off: The Evil Within
2
98
17K
stryke replied
PAX/Fanexpo impression thread
17
4K
levyjl1988 replied
Top Bottom