mantis_prime
Junior Member
The viewer should be able to decide on the painting's aspect ratio.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Order: 1886 is rendering in 2.40:1 ratio (1920x800), will this be a trend?
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
- Status
The viewer should be able to decide on the painting's aspect ratio.
FrozenCell
Member
will look gorgeous on a projector, can't wait
Scaling shows you hit a performance issue, (although maybe someone on GAF would argue for scaling artifacts as an aesthetic choice), this doesn't show that at all.
Please done imply that I'm not getting what you're saying. I get it and its wrong.
Yes, you're entire screen isn't being filled but its not being cut off. "Cut off" implies that its being taken away. "Not being used" is what you mean to say.
And again I think your whole point, in regards to films, is ludicrous. It was ludicrous when widescreen hit video in the 90's and its even more ludicrous now. You're not losing a single thing in that aspect ratio. You're seeing the entire picture the way it was intended by the filmmakers.
Their intentions > your want of the entire screen filled.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
I'm actually lost for words at some of the reactions here.
Going full widescreen is as valid a stylistic choice as choosing a monochrome palette, as in Limbo for example.
The main thing I suppose is that it challenges the notion that the number of dots that make up the image has any real meaning or value; People don't get up in arms when watching a 2:40:1 AR movie on blue-ray even though the image doesn't use the full 1080 pixels of height in the frame-buffer because its understood that the way an image is framed is a compositional tool.
However it seems in gaming we are stuck with this asinine, childish, view that its the number of pixels, not the quality of the image that is important.
Going full widescreen is as valid a stylistic choice as choosing a monochrome palette, as in Limbo for example.
The main thing I suppose is that it challenges the notion that the number of dots that make up the image has any real meaning or value; People don't get up in arms when watching a 2:40:1 AR movie on blue-ray even though the image doesn't use the full 1080 pixels of height in the frame-buffer because its understood that the way an image is framed is a compositional tool.
However it seems in gaming we are stuck with this asinine, childish, view that its the number of pixels, not the quality of the image that is important.
dragonbane
Member
Quantic Dream uses black bars as well to improve performance.
Here is what a direct feed screenshot of Beyond looks like (720p):
How it looks on a TV:
And here The Dark Sorcerer (1080p):
Here is what a direct feed screenshot of Beyond looks like (720p):
How it looks on a TV:
And here The Dark Sorcerer (1080p):
Nappuccino
Member
Apparently someone doesn't know much about movies and composition. Filmmakers choose resolution very intelligently based on what they want to accomplish in their film and the kinda of film-stock they're going to be shooting on.
Always-honest
Banned
Kinda cool on my HD projector.
NullPointer
Member
In what universe?
This
Wait, what? But it doesn't make any sense now that we are homing in on more powerful systems and everyone finally has a 16:9 TV. Such a waste. And there's already two games confirmed? This cannot be true, can it? It's confirmed? And it's not even scalable from the console?
I hope at least all the hud elements are fitted into 16:9 so it's possible to scale it via the TV options.
I hope at least all the hud elements are fitted into 16:9 so it's possible to scale it via the TV options.
You don't play a film, vertical screen real estate isn't important.
NullPointer
Member
Its both, and to use your own terms its asinine and childish to approach games as films.
clearly you haven't read much of GAF off topic
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
on this note i have question. if there was no standard tv resolution, what would be the optimum aspect ratio for gaming?
A bit of a shame it's forced. But hell, I have a 2.4:1 television set. Would personally love to see more games bring in the option for 2.4:1 ratio. I play PC games at 2560x1080 (downsampled to 1920x810) on my television and let me tell ya, it's the perfect ratio for shooters and racers.
Too bad I'm not all too interested in this game. Heh.
Too bad I'm not all too interested in this game. Heh.
Well if a game is conceived with a peculiar aspect ratio in mind, i would hope FOV shortcomings factor in that equation.
What's the aspect ratio of life?
In the universe where it is a creators choice how to present their creation to the public. So this universe.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
This is so fucking stupid. This was something that I loved about games compared to non-IMAX edition screen filling movies, using that whole fucking widescreen.
But yeah, why not add in black fucking huge bars to be more "cinematic" eh. WHY NOT. YOU FUCKS.
But yeah, why not add in black fucking huge bars to be more "cinematic" eh. WHY NOT. YOU FUCKS.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
my wild guess:
~5:3 ish... i guess it depends on the space between your eyes and whether or not you wear glasses.
Zombie James
Banned
Meh, it doesn't really bother me all that much. It might start getting annoying if every single game starts doing this, but this seems to be a stylistic choice. A lot of "cinematic" Skyrim ENB's also do a letterboxed 2.40:1 ratio.
NullPointer
Member
They can make their choice and so can consumers. Consumers choice will "win" out, unless there is something else you meant by ">".
I Stalk Alone
Member
thats one way to get 1080p 60fps, you could probably get 120fps if it was just a black screen and audio. It would be like the radio...
velociraptor
Junior Member
This seems a bit dumb.
I believe Ratchet And Clank has black bars as well (which facilitates 60FPS), but they are ever so slight, so you don't notice it.
I would prefer to see as much of the screen as possible.
I believe Ratchet And Clank has black bars as well (which facilitates 60FPS), but they are ever so slight, so you don't notice it.
I would prefer to see as much of the screen as possible.
boredandlazy
Member
I'll wait and see gameplay at that AR/Resolution before I make any rash comments, since this was a cinematic scene and all... And the only source we have is an off the cuff observation.
I would have expected most people would do the same, but GAF has a way of disappointing me sometimes.
I would have expected most people would do the same, but GAF has a way of disappointing me sometimes.
captscience
Member
Living like this can't be good for your health.
Wind's Howling
Member
GTFO if that is going to be the standard in next-gen games.
First no 1080p in this current gen and then black bars in next gen? A gamer can only take so much.
First no 1080p in this current gen and then black bars in next gen? A gamer can only take so much.
I think it is something like 1.48. Very close to what IMAX is (1.44).
Hmm so 1.3, still pretty close to IMAX at 1.44
Basically we should all game on IMAX.
dummydecoy
Member
ND should have done the same with TLOU IMHO to avoid DAT 22fps gameplay.
I think it's not that useful in movies either, but anyway.. A game is not a movie, and it shouldn't try to be one. All the wanna-be movie directors in the gaming industry should calm their misplaced cinema-experience-enthusiasm the hell down and concentrate on bringing a good experience at home first and foremost. What I mean is, a movie is made primarily to be shown in a movie theatre where 2.35 ratio is the norm. A game is primarily made for be played on TV at home, where the 16:9 ratio has been and will be the norm for great deal longer than the lifetime of a PS4 or a Xbox One. That unused screen estate is not making for a better gaming experience.
boredandlazy
Member
2/3 in fact.
nhlducks35
Member
KojiKnight
Member
This isn't an especially new tactic... SF2 on SNES used a similar trick to free up additional resources.
It wasn't me that made the original post. But I read that as, what the creator of the media chooses is always going to override what the consumer of that media wants.
It is the creators creation, they can present it to you in whatever fashion they want, mime, flick book, comic, book, TV, film, interpretative dance, sculpture, 16:9, 4:3, 1.85:1 etc.
Now, if the paying public do not wish to see that creation in that format then they don't buy it. It is the choice of both sides.
As someone else said, if The Order bombs it will have fuck all to do with having black bars.
I have no problems with different aspect ratios in films or TV shows. I remember getting into heated arguments when DVDs started coming out and people wanted to chop the sides off to fit their TVs. i remember getting into arguments when HDTVs were becoming more popular and people wanted to do the same and also stretch 1.33:1 content to fill up their HDTV screens. This to me is a completely different argument.
Films and TVs are passive experiences where the creators lay out their vision before you and you have no control over what is displayed. For games where the camera is not static, you the player determines what is on your screen unless it's a cutscene or one of those scenes like in the Last Of Us where you press L2 to focus on what the devs want you to see.
This appropriation of film techniques is just wrongheaded and shows a misunderstanding by the devs of the differences between the film and game mediums as well as the strengths and weaknesses of interactive medium. Creating an immersive world and allowing the player to interact with it in new and exciting ways would be a better course of action than mangling the viewing area to incorrectly mimic what is done in film where your audience is not going to be swinging the camera all over the scene themselves.
They could still use the different lenses, film grain effects, and other stylistic flourishes within the full canvas allowed by the 1.78:1 aspect ratio of HDTVs without negatively impacting the viewing area provided to the player. If the game does have a static camera then I guess all my complaints are a non-issue as they can frame scenes as they see fit and no it will be viewed by everyone but if that is not the case then their decision makes no sense as players will be free to move the camera around and create their own scene compositions.
Films and TVs are passive experiences where the creators lay out their vision before you and you have no control over what is displayed. For games where the camera is not static, you the player determines what is on your screen unless it's a cutscene or one of those scenes like in the Last Of Us where you press L2 to focus on what the devs want you to see.
This appropriation of film techniques is just wrongheaded and shows a misunderstanding by the devs of the differences between the film and game mediums as well as the strengths and weaknesses of interactive medium. Creating an immersive world and allowing the player to interact with it in new and exciting ways would be a better course of action than mangling the viewing area to incorrectly mimic what is done in film where your audience is not going to be swinging the camera all over the scene themselves.
They could still use the different lenses, film grain effects, and other stylistic flourishes within the full canvas allowed by the 1.78:1 aspect ratio of HDTVs without negatively impacting the viewing area provided to the player. If the game does have a static camera then I guess all my complaints are a non-issue as they can frame scenes as they see fit and no it will be viewed by everyone but if that is not the case then their decision makes no sense as players will be free to move the camera around and create their own scene compositions.
- Status