Support NeoGAF

[Chuck]

Quick illustration on the possible difference to the FOV. As others have said I have chosen to play like this when expanded FOV was more important than detail in distance.

This exactly.

I feel some people saying "you move the camera around" as an argument against this are forgetting or not realizing a TON of games already restrict the hell out of your field of view, even third person games. I don't see how this is any different.

 

[Nappuccino]

on this note i have question. if there was no standard tv resolution, what would be the optimum aspect ratio for gaming?

my 16:10 monitor is fantastic. I'm scared of the day when I'll have to go down to a 16:9.

 

[Uno Venova]

The game has some nice devs behind it, will play if it turns out great.

 

[dragonbane]

Would it be really that hard to see a 1920x1080 game from Sony for a change? This is getting embarrasing.

Killzone, DriveClub, Knack and Infamous are 1080p without black bars I think.

The thought of sub 1080p in 2018 disgusts me.

X1 games are guaranteed to be 720p by the end of the generation....a damn shame really

This will probably happen. CoD was sub 720p for most of this generation.

 

[Smokey]

I predict many games will be 720p.

I don't think so. That's an absurdly low resolution. If anything you'll see games in between this and
1080p once this gen gets in full swing.

 

[NekoFever]

Someone should send this article to Ready at Dawn.

It's notable that calling a game "cinematic" is considered high praise, while saying a movie is "like a video game" is one of the worst insults a film critic can wield. There's a perceptual imbalance there, and it's one that gaming - both industry and players - have yet to fully confront. The simple truth is that games are not films, and they never were.

I've posted a few times in defence of filmmakers being free to choose what aspect ratio to use, but games are different. There is no shot composition because I'm looking at what I want to. It's about the player having an experience as an active participant, whereas movies are about passively watching something unfold. Aspect ratio is completely irrelevant to games, which is why now you can set your console to 4:3 or 16:9 and get a more or less equal experience, unlike watching a movie cropped to fill the screen, which is a compromised version of the creator's intention.

 

[tarheel91]

Nope. Your source isn't right.

To make an example: Take a normal 16:9 screenshot, squeeze it to 19:7 for example. Save it. Scale it to 16:9 again . The 16:7 version is the rendered version. The system will than scale that to 16:9, which makes the aspect ratio right again

1) Render the game is a faulty aspect ratio. The resolution is lower than 1080p
2) scale the image to 1080p. The aspect ratio is now perfect.

The scaling of the image is way cheaper than rendering at higher res.

I thought I'd try this out in paint with a default 1080P SS from Project Cars and compare A to B. Here's the results:

Original:

Shrunk:

Resized:

IQ definitely suffers in the resized version, but it's not as bad as I expected. It looks like the biggest impact is on hard lines. The jaggies increase noticeably. I'm not sure this would be quite as big a deal using a smarter algorithm along with some AA.

 

[Freki]

I actually don't, why?

Movies are filmed and shown as 2.2/2.35:1 in most theatres. In order to be able to more adequately represent them without the black borders you would have to reproduce that format in a living room.
But going for TVs with these ratios poses two problems:
1. TVs using these movie aspect ratios were thought to be to bulky for an avarage living room.
2. TV material filmed in the old 4:3 ratio couldn't be adequately represented in the 2.2:1 aspect ratio.

The compromise is 16:9 (1,7777...) - which is right in between 4:3 and 2,2:1 (1,76666....)
It's better suited to be placed in an avarage living room, is still able to represent old TV material and does a better job at showing movies the way they were ment to be shown.

Long story short - going from 4:3 to 16:9 in games was already a move towards a more cinematic experience - and I can't remember anyone complaining about this back then...

 

[Vespene]

Framing the game with black borders to increase performance has been going on for a long time.

 

[eddfromtheriver]

This is stupid. Stop doing this.
It's stupid in movies too.

I hate it in movies... much more in games... i want the entire real state of my screen used... i loath black bars and all the different aspect ratios... i'm not gonna buy it if true.

 

[richiek]

Solution: 21:9 monitors.

 

[StuBurns]

Quick illustration on the possible difference to the FOV. As others have said I have chosen to play like this when expanded FOV was more important than detail in distance.

FoV isn't related to aspect ratio.

The FoV should be relative to the user's distance from the screen, not the vertical resolution.

 

[tarheel91]

Solution: 21:9 monitors.

That'd be 1080p still. You'd basically just be upscaling at that point.

@StuBurns: The ratio of horizontal to vertical FOV will change with aspect ratio.

 

[Ezio]

I am ok with this actually. Not a lot of information on this game yet, but I'm pumped for it. Loved the E3 trailer.

 

[nhlducks35]

Solution: 21:9 monitors.

But then you get black bars on the side if you want to watch something in 16:9.

 

[drugstore_cowboy]

But then you get black bars on the side if you want to watch something in 16:9.

Make a little pair or curtains for the sides.

I'm serious.

 

[EvB]

This is not a hardware power issue. Final dev kits aren't even out yet and resolution changes don't happen to well into development. If this decision has been made now, it's purely an artistic choice.

Is it fuck.

this is just another way of presenting a game under a "cinematic" pretense which allows developers to make what is actually on screen look shinier.

That's certainly my cynical view on it anyway.

If I was even more cynical I'd say that Sony must be due to launch a new range of TVs too.

 

[BRUTALBOWN]

Someone should send this article to Ready at Dawn.



I've posted a few times in defence of filmmakers being free to choose what aspect ratio to use, but games are different. There is no shot composition because I'm looking at what I want to. It's about the player having an experience as an active participant, whereas movies are about passively watching something unfold. Aspect ratio is completely irrelevant to games, which is why now you can set your console to 4:3 or 16:9 and get a more or less equal experience, unlike watching a movie cropped to fill the screen, which is a compromised version of the creator's intention.

I love oversized heads on my 50" 16:9 screen!

 

[Perkel]

Quick illustration on the possible difference to the FOV. As others have said I have chosen to play like this when expanded FOV was more important than detail in distance.

hhahhaha expanded FOV !?

Huge fov is sooooo last gen. We started at 80-85 with games like quake and unreal
this gen was all about dat 55-65.
So logical conclusion for next gen will be 30-40 fov

I run some advanced simulations, gathered some hard data and thanks to super advanced prediction scripts i managed to create actual screenshot from actual released next gen games The Order:

Dat juicy letterbox with 30 fov and 24 fps. Sooo filmic

 

[DBT85]

I hate it in movies... much more in games... i want the entire real state of my screen used... i loath black bars and all the different aspect ratios... i'm not gonna buy it if true.

You are not going to buy a game based on the display resolution, rather than on whether it is a shit game or not?

If this comes out and the reviewers are fellating it like they were TLoU or MGS4 or any of the other massive hits this gen, are you seriously not going to buy it because it has some black bars top and bottom? Honestly?

Is it fuck.

this is just another way of presenting a game under a "cinematic" pretense which allows developers to make what is actually on screen look shinier.

That's certainly my cynical view on it anyway.

If I was even more cynical I'd say that Sony must be due to launch a new range of TVs too.

Then why wouldn't they scale it up, like so many other games this gen?

 

[Carnby]

First they came for 4:3
and I didn't speak up because I was planning on buying a 16:9 TV anyway.

Then they came for 16:9...

haha. clever.

 

[seventynine]

A game camera is the window into the world of the game. If developers want to change the aspect ratio of that window to evoke a feeling, subconscious or not, then good for them. I'm intrigued anyway.

If they gain performance benefits too, more power to them.

 

[v0yce]

This could be cool. It'll be interesting to see how this affects the mood of the game.

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.

Wow. This conversation in 2013.

These guys are going to force pan and scan into games.

 

[Majanew]

If these "artists" should be free to share their "vision" no matter what, because -- it's their vision -- then why do many get up in arms when that vision sometimes means the frame-rate is sub-30fps and/or the resolution is sub-720p? It's their vision! Dealwithit.

Wow. These guys are going to force pan and scan into games.

Or you know, design your games with what almost all HDTV's aspect ratios are. No, that would limit their vision. What a crock of shit.

 

[Hydrargyrus]

WTF???

If I have to choose, I would prefer 720p rather than 800p with those shitty black bars.

This is one of those typical crappy things that sometimes happens in Sony's first party titles, with no reason and that no one likes...

 

[stktt]

I hope not.

 

[bj00rn_]

Quick illustration on the possible difference to the FOV. As others have said I have chosen to play like this when expanded FOV was more important than detail in distance.

Here's a funny fact: You can have that exact same FOV that you showed AND a picture filled out to the edges of the screen. Your example was well-meant, but it doesn't really do anything when you think about it.

 

[funkystudent]

Hate letter boxed games. It seems like a dumb way to make up for not hitting native resolution. Would rather have sub native res but full screen.

I already dont plan on buying Beyond because its letter boxed and it would put be off this game as well.

 

[LastNac]

Someone should send this article to Ready at Dawn.



I've posted a few times in defence of filmmakers being free to choose what aspect ratio to use, but games are different. There is no shot composition because I'm looking at what I want to. It's about the player having an experience as an active participant, whereas movies are about passively watching something unfold. Aspect ratio is completely irrelevant to games, which is why now you can set your console to 4:3 or 16:9 and get a more or less equal experience, unlike watching a movie cropped to fill the screen, which is a compromised version of the creator's intention.

How about No and just let them do want they want.

 

[la flama blanca]

DO NOT WANT.

 

[coldfoot]

Every aspect ratio in the world should be 16:9. No exceptions. Completely dislike anything wider than that. The only reason movies are wider is that it's cheaper to build theaters that are wide than that are tall, and also allows having more shots in a roll of film. It's all digital now motherfuckers, so 16:9 for everyone!

 

[BruiserBear]

Are they using something with the touchpad? That's the exact resolution of the touchpad.

Ugh. I hope not.

 

[v0yce]

Here's a funny fact: You can have that exact same FOV that you showed AND a picture filled out to the edges of the screen. Your example was well-meant, but it doesn't really do anything when you think about it.

No you can't. You would be seeing more/less on the top/side.

You cannot replicate that view in a different aspect ratio because it is a different shape.

Like others have pointed out, changing the window you are viewing the game world through can change the mood and feel of a game regards if the player is moving the camera around.

I don't know why this is so hard for some to grasp.

 

[G_Berry]

hhahhaha expanded FOV !?

Dat juicy letterbox with 30 fov and 24 fps. Sooo filmic

O M G lol!

 

[BigDug13]

This is stupid. Stop doing this.
It's stupid in movies too.

How is it stupid in movies when movies aren't designed for your TV, they're designed for wide screen theaters?

 

[Extra Sauce]

I really do feel like 2.4 movies look more cinematic, can't really explain why. Maybe the wider canvas makes for more interesting shot compositions. In any case, I like the idea of attempting the format on a game.

 

[Canis lupus]

Cool, something else for a change.

 

[bj00rn_]

No you can't. You would be seeing more/less on the top/side.

You cannot replicate that view in a different aspect ratio because it is a different shape.

Like others have pointed out, changing the window you are viewing the game world through can change the mood and feel of a game regards if the player is moving the camera around.

I don't know why this is so hard for some to grasp.

Yes you can. You just don't get it. I don't want to draw it up, but imagine your widest FOV picture and fill in details on top and down simple as that. Same wide FOV, but with more vertical detail.

Actually, an easier way to explain it would be if you were a PC gamer, then you would instantly know exactly what I'm talking about. Because most newer PC games have a FOV slider; Increasing it you get a wider FOV, but the thing is, it does of course not make black bars as you increase the FOV..; No, it simply fills in top and bottom more geometrical detail. That's also btw why you may increase performance by reducing the FOV, and this we have been talking about many times on this forum. Bioshock Infinite has a FOV slider f.ex., it works well, and...you don't lose "the mood and feel of the game", I can assure you...

Here's why your gif is misleading:

That's how the FOV slider in Bioshock Infinite works; Exact same aspect ratio, but wider AND taller FOV.

 

[jaosobno]

Fuck "filmic", make it "gamic"! Goddamn black borders in my next gen game...

 

[injurai]

Quick illustration on the possible difference to the FOV. As others have said I have chosen to play like this when expanded FOV was more important than detail in distance.

FOV is everything in an FPS. So finally having a good 90+ FOV in a console shooter would be a god send.

 

[Ysiadmihi]

Wow, this is definitely what I want out of next-gen games.

 

[RibbedHero]

Cool, something else for a change.

People said the same about superman 64.

 

[Monty Mole]

eh, bullshit. widescreen panavision and such exists because you DO gain information from it... on film. digital it's bullshit, HOWEVER theaters are still built in such a manner that a 2.35:1 picture IS BIGGER than a 1.85:1 picture.

For something that is digital AND never going to be in a theater, it's bullshit. they could achieve the same effect at 16:9.

This this this!!!!!!

Can't believe this is even happening, and worse still, some posters here are actually supporting it.

I can forgive it for movies because film is obviously made for the cinema where panavision is a thing. Not the case for games where we're all playing on 16:9 TVs. TV shows are in 16:9 for the same damn reason. What idiocy is this?

And the whole 'filmic' thing is bullshit. Was 'The Shining' any less filmic because it was only available in 4:3 until recently (under Kubrick's orders)? Is it less filmic now because it's still only 16:9? No, it's still one of the most incredible film experiences ever.

Game makers, you're not movie directors, get over it.

 

[PotionBleue]

I don't understand why people buy TVs and find it nice to have the screen not entirely filled. Do you guys really like black bars?

I'm not buying a TV to have footage display on only 80 % of its height. It's utterly ridiculous.

 

[jaosobno]

There is only one gif that can communicate my emotions regarding this decision:

 

[EvB]

Then why wouldn't they scale it up, like so many other games this gen?

Because you lose the 1:1 pixel loveliness, this is a good way to achieve the same thing in rendering a low res image and scaling it, but presenting said lower res image to the player in the guise of something more acceptable

 

[drugstore_cowboy]

This this this!!!!!!

Can't believe this is even happening, and worse still, some posters here are actually supporting it.

I'd support it as an option because on my setup it's the best fit and generally looks great, sucks for 16:9/10 displays.

 

[Satchel]

Dat GDDR5 huh?

 

[v0yce]

Yes you can. You just don't get it. I don't want to draw it up, but imagine your widest FOV picture and fill in details on top and down simple as that. Same wide FOV, but with more vertical detail.

Umm... that's changing the the FOV.

Actually, an easier way to explain it would be if you were a PC gamer, then you would instantly know exactly what I'm talking about. Because most newer PC games have a FOV slider; Increasing it you get a wider FOV, but the thing is, it does of course not make black bars as you increase the FOV..; No, it simply fills in top and bottom more geometrical detail. That's also btw why you may increase performance by reducing the FOV, and this we have been talking about many times on this forum. Bioshock Infinite has a FOV slider f.ex., it works well, and...you don't lose "the mood and feel of the game", I can assure you...

I guess at this point, all I can say is that I disagree. Different aspect ratios and the view they provide can change the mood. If you pulled back the camera in Bioshock all the way to where you could see every enemy in the entire area at once it would not be nearly as intense.

I wouldn't want to play Red Dead Redemption in 4:3. The environments wouldn't have near the impact. And I'd love to try RDR in Lawrence or Arabia style scope.

I appreciate these things and don't feel robbed when my tv isn't flexing all of it's pixels.

 

[Freki]

This this this!!!!!!

Can't believe this is even happening, and worse still, some posters here are actually supporting it.

This is Gaf - remember we have a defense force for everything ;-)

I agree with the argument "I don't like black bars / wasted real estate"
I agree with the argument that there is the possibilty that the aspect ratio in question is only chosen for performance reasons, although I'd think simple upscaling would be more subtle in order to achieve this goal...

I don't however agree with the notion that a 2,4:1 aspect ratio is inherently flawed
- many of us do enjoy comparable aspect ratios in theatres and many of us did welcome the change from 4:3 to 16:9...