2K addresses BioShock widescreen issue
It states that the optimal mode for playing the game is in widescreen, the mode that 90% of 2K's development stations employed. Team members chose a widescreen field of view "that best reflected their intentions with respect to the way the world is perceived" and instead of cropping it for 4:3 displays, they "slightly extended the vertical FOV for standard def mode: we never wanted to have black bars on people's displays." In other words, the original widescreen mode lost nothing while the 4:3 mode was extended.
While that sounds like a "same difference" situation, 2K feels they made the right decision. If, however, you're still not pleased, the developer is looking into ways of allowing users to manually adjust the field of view. Alternatively, you can have your memory erased and play the game blissfully unaware of issues you wouldn't have noticed had someone not pointed them out to you.
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 2)
Pyronite @ Aug 22nd 2007 5:31PM
I can't believe you guys still don't believe it. I said it yesterday afternoon and plenty other members expressed the same thing -- it's an ARTISTIC DECISION!!
It hasn't been "disproven." If you think something has proven it wrong, we call that CONFIRMATION BIAS. You'd like to think it's wrong, therefore anything saying it's wrong (even when the DEVELOPER says otherwise) must be right.
There should be a sociology study done about this case. Seriously. It's the way they made the game and they're certainly not going to lie and say "oops, it's okay" if a simple patch would make the game they worked on for three-plus years look how it was "supposed" to. This IS how it's supposed to look, from the E3 videos to screenshots and everything in-between.
The sad part is, everyone here would be happy if the 4:3 were simply a lopped off 16:9. Because Irrational decided to have some integrity and not chop off the horizontal FOV they worked to polish, gamers are going crazy.
Games are "art" my ass, you guys can't even accept what the artist tells you he wanted.
Slaziman @ Aug 22nd 2007 8:28PM
So if it was supposed to be like you see it in widescreen, why is the lower half of all weapon models cut off?
by the way according to geeks, showing more than the artist "intended" is just as bad as showing less, so that means that, by your logic, 4:3 users are getting screwed?
SymetriX @ Aug 22nd 2007 8:48PM
>> The sad part is, everyone here would be happy if the 4:3 were simply a lopped off 16:9
This is a pathetic and tired argument from people who, again, obviously don't actually understand the problem.
A coupe of facts: widescreen monitors are (duh) WIDER than fullscreen monitors.
If, as you say, the fullscreen version was identical to the widescreen version, but with the sides "lopped off", that would actually be CORRECT.
Why? Think about it: that would give the full screen users a more narrow horizontal field-of-view.
Instead, Irrational decided to "lop off" the top and bottom of the screen for widescreen monitors, and leave the horizontal field-of-view the same (read: not any WIDER), which would technically provide a "wide screen" display, albeit with competely screwed up ratios, meaning widescreen gamers experience a "zoomed-in" effect.
I could go on about the details forever, but it seems people just want to complain and blindly defend this game even though they've *clearly* made some mistakes, which, although not game-altering, should at least be addressed.
Chris in Edmonton @ Aug 22nd 2007 5:40PM
"Alternatively, you can have your memory erased and play the game blissfully unaware of issues you wouldn't have noticed had someone not pointed them out to you."
Quoted for truth. All you whiners need an attitude adjustment, preferably with a baseball bat.
Rare Hare @ Aug 22nd 2007 5:51PM
I don't even own a wide screen TV or an Xbox 360, but I don think this is an issue (even if it's only a small one). I just find it really odd that the developers made the decision to seemingly favor 4:3 TVs on a console whose major selling point is HD gaming.
The biggest attraction of a wide screen TV, in my opinion, is the ability to see MORE. This completely negates that.
Andy @ Aug 23rd 2007 4:10AM
No, the benefit of widescreen is not “seeing more”; the benefit is seeing things in the correct aspect ratio. For open-matte movies (The Princess Bride, The Abyss, any number of others), you are seeing more in the 4x3 version. So why is that not the preferred version? Because that’s not what was seen in the theaters, and it’s not what the director intended. As Irrational said, they tested and optimized the game for a widescreen aspect ratio; the fact that the 4x3 version shows more at the top and bottom should not matter. “More” does not equal “better.”
Rare Hare @ Aug 23rd 2007 4:20AM
Can you read, retard? I said it's the BIGGEST ATTRACTION -- wait for this, this part is important -- IN MY OPINION.
And, in fact, a big selling point of wide-screen TVs is the extra screen area. Shows such as My Name Is Earl even play with it in ways such as having a character standing in what would be off screen for viewers using a 4:3 set and holding up a note that says "HD ROCKS!" So try to sit there and tell me that it's not part of the wide screen experience for a lot of people.
Fuck off.
Andy @ Aug 23rd 2007 11:31AM
Yes, some shows like My Name Is Earl have more information on the sides in a widescreen presentation. But there are also tons of movies that were soft-matted, where the widescreen version has less picture information than the 4x3 open-matte version. However, in those cases, the open-matte version is not the correct aspect ratio that was displayed in the theaters.
And by the way, since when did saying “in my opinion” mean that people should not offer corrections or counter-arguments? Yes, in your opinion, “widescreen” equals “more picture”; I am simply pointing out that, for many movies (and video games), that is simply not the case. If you want to ignore that information, that’s fine, but don’t tell me to “fuck off” just for trying to give you some new information.
Rare Hare @ Aug 23rd 2007 3:26PM
No, I don't need you "correcting" my opinion. The biggest attraction to of wide screen to me is the extra screen area on the sides, so why try to correct that?
If someone says the biggest attraction of buying a truck, in their opinion, is looking cool, then are you going to correct them by saying, "NU-UH, IT'S THE HAULING SPACE PROVIDED BY THE BED." No, because that's stupid. That's not why they want a truck.
So, yeah man. Fuck off.
Shagittarius @ Aug 22nd 2007 5:53PM
I think we can blame Nintendo for all these people who no longer seem to care about quality of experience.
Its a fun game it shouldn't matter what you can or can't see right? Reguardless of weather it could be much better?
megaStryke @ Aug 22nd 2007 7:21PM
HOLY SHIT! You found a way to drag Nintendo into this without Nintendo having anything to do with it!
shivr @ Aug 23rd 2007 1:02AM
He is amazing, isn't he?
FatOprah @ Aug 22nd 2007 5:58PM
I fully understand the argument, but I never would have none the difference, and that pretty much settles the argument for me, personally.
blooh @ Aug 22nd 2007 6:09PM
according to the screenshot at the top, the widesreen viewers can't see their HP bar? that's retarded and needs to be patched.
I have a semi-widescreen tv and could see my hp bars during the demo, but about .5 of an inch was cropped off each side...very odd. I couldn't see the 5th letter in the radio guy's name
Shagittarius @ Aug 22nd 2007 6:13PM
Your TV has a bad overscan issue...that doesn't have anything to do with BioShock.
And we can see the HP bar and stuff that floats on top of the POV.
Gamerextrordinaire @ Aug 22nd 2007 6:13PM
Relax, 2K. No reasonable person considers this an issue. The game is fucking awesome, and at this point the only people stirring this pot are Nintendo/Sony loyalists or Xbox 360 owners who need to grow the fuck up.
T-bone and Razor @ Aug 22nd 2007 7:39PM
No: I think its people who bought the game and were expecting perfection, and find this minute imperfection scathing, somehow
Single console PS3/Wii owners are waiting for Warhawk and MP3, respectively, i doubt they care
leland @ Aug 22nd 2007 6:23PM
I'll bitch because it's wrong, it looks wrong, and I did notice something was off before anyone pointed it out.
When programming in 3D, you define the aperture and view angle of the "camera" you've written, so it's not a matter of "moving the dolly" back, it's about having the correct field of view. ie, if standard def is viewing at an angle of 120 degrees (for example, every game is a little different), that may look fine on a standard def TV. But, having a 120 degree field of view on a widescreen will be limiting, because you now have to focus on things that are in front of you that are on the edges of the screen that would be centered if the camera was set to a 140 degree viewing angle. That changes all the time in game (think using a sniper scope) and shouldn't be that hard to fix.
So, yes, it does looks weird, compared to every other widescreen 360 game, and I do notice. Everything looks a little zoomed in. Call me a whiner if you want, but it's wrong.
vanwagnen @ Aug 22nd 2007 7:11PM
Sure you could say that to you it looks weird, but nevertheless it is not a "mistake". It is a decision made by the developer. Getting the FOV "right" is always very important for a game, and here is a game that received 100/100 reviews etc. and I would say that based on that they got it right, and they said they tuned the FOV for widescreen. They felt that it was important to have a given horizontal field of view, (probably because moest enemies etc are likely to be to the right or left rather than up or down presumably)which they preserved in both versions. The 4:3 people got some more pixels on the top and bottom at the expense of a shrunken and therefore slightly less detailed version of the intended and tuned view.
I agree that FOV can be a matter of taste at times so of course you may think it looks weird to you, but it looks perfect to the developers of this incredible game and that is why they set the FOV the way they did.
Andy @ Aug 23rd 2007 12:56PM
The FOV argument completely ignores the fact that, for thousands of movies, the 4x3 open-matte version is exactly the same as what is being done with BioShock. They don’t film a 4x3 version, then widen the field of view and reshoot it for widescreen. They use the same field of view for both. But the important part is to realize that when they do that, they are composing the picture as they wanted it for the widescreen view.
And that’s exactly what Irrational said they did with BioShock. So why doesn’t anyone trust their judgement?
Seroth @ Aug 22nd 2007 6:47PM
As long as they're looking into fixing the issue, then it's fine.
jorojoserojas @ Aug 22nd 2007 6:56PM
Well, either way, on my cut widescreen or someone's complete fullscreen, it doesn't matter.
All I see is a freakin' Big Daddy charging my ass.
BIGGEN @ Aug 22nd 2007 7:12PM
omg, you fucking people are dorks. DORKS!
ThornedVenom @ Aug 22nd 2007 7:19PM
Quit moaning about what the other counterpart has more of and look on the bright side: 4:3 has a bigger field of view whereas 16:9 allows you to admire the detail of the textures.
vanwagnen @ Aug 22nd 2007 7:22PM
The truth is you commie widescreen guys seem to be pissed that the fullscreen guys arent forced to play the game with a narrower tube like field of view.
All of these images showing various aspect ratios with constant height show this rather well. Irrational made the shocking choice of letting the 4:3 guys experience the game as intended (being able to see the same amount horizontally), and because they didn't just letterbox the 4:3 view you widescreenies are bithcing to high heaven. You are such idiots.
BTW I have a widescreen HDTV so I am not a 4:3 'fanboy' :)
jadenguy @ Aug 22nd 2007 8:34PM
ask any old film enthusiast about widescreen and televisions and suddenly you'll understand the oldness of the issue. the digital age adds something to the issue because now the camera is dynamic and mathematical. seriously, they either cropped the widescreen or cropped the fullscreen. and because this time it's widescreen, it's a sin. what's more, they are stating that their intention was to show you the widescreen world, and yet it's even more of an issue. i don't get it. at all.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/hookup_18.php
this article is interesting because the first major fight of the digital age was surprisingly different!
i hope somebody gets a chance to read this because it really is important.
GTMoogle @ Aug 23rd 2007 12:04AM
So when do we get to bitch about the crash problems and insane paranoid spyware copy protection? I get to choose between dx9 crashing at key points in the story, or dx10 putting huge black bars on the left and right of my 16:10 screen, even in widescreen resolutions (it squishes the screen horizontally if I don't choose a 4:3 res). I'm curious how many people aren't having problems...
And why the hell does my volume up button bring up some map/inventory page?!? What the hell are they doing?
But my first playthrough was pretty sweet...
shivr @ Aug 23rd 2007 1:01AM
well I dunno about you guys, but looking at the two screenshots above, the widscreen one looks a little better, while the 4:3 looks a little... squished or too far zoomed out, with less detail.
I really hope the developer doesn't "fix" this issue, this amount of crazy whining should not be dignified.
rruss79 @ Aug 23rd 2007 1:16AM
Well place me in the group that just doesn't give a crap. When I play the game on my 22 inch Wide screen monitor it looks great. When I play the game, I am having so much fun that I just do not have time to care about the little bit I am missing up top or at the bottom. In no way is does this change the way you will play the game or enjoy it so crying about something so insignificant really seems idiotic.
Man sometimes I wonder why developers even care about the PC nowadays since it seems you can never please the PC elit crowd.
Tephlon @ Aug 23rd 2007 2:11AM
Ok. I understand some of you don't care. Great.
I think what makes this all seem so 'ridiculous of a complaint' to most of you is because the people who want it 'fixed' are either focusing on the wrong part of the issue, or are using vocabulary they believe is right, only the muck up the issue and piss off the educated.
The issue isn't (or shouldn't be) that we, as widescreen users/owners, "Feel we're entitled to see more than others", it's that the FOV "feels" wrong, or are otherwise made physically sick by it.
People can argue all day long (and they have) about what is 'proper' widescreen implementation, but the bottom line is, it's making some people UNABLE to play the game.
Now, now. I know some of you out there are crying 'BULLSHIT', and simply cannot comprehend this... but it's true.
For those that saw the comparison shots and said "HEY, Why do Fullscreen users see more?! SCREW THEM! We deserve more than they do!!", I agree with you guys... Fuck em'.
But that's not really the issue. The issue is, by choosing to make the game 'Horizontally Locked', you've caused a 'zoomed in' feel that many simply don't like, or can't physically use. It's WAY more prone to cause motion sickness, as everything is closer feeling to the screen. I really don't know how much better I can explain it than that. I, personally, don't get sick, but the demo does give me headaches when I play it, very much unlike any other FPS game I've ever played. (This can also create an odd feeling in the mouse movement as well, but I'm not going to go into that now. Check 2k's forums for details)
Again, the point is, this widescreen implementation creates a very unnatural FOV. In every other game since 1999, you've had some control over this, or it was simply implemented "correctly". Again, I know that term is gonna piss some of you off, but there's no other way to say it. The human eyes are oriented side by side, giving us a greater horizontal view than vertical (hence, peripheral vision). This is also why widescreen is so appealing, because it more closely mimics human sight than a 4:3 aspect does. Wine and piss and moan about this all you want, but it's true. That's why so many make the claim that Horz+ is the 'correct' way to implement widescreen. Every other developer EVER has agreed. And THAT, is why people are upset. It either 'FEELS WRONG', or it 'FEELS SICKENING'. Either way, it's not 'right'. I understand that the developers purposely implemented widescreen in this manner for 'artistic purposes', but that still doesn't exactly make it 'right', from a viewability/usability standpoint. The funny thing about this is, when you correct the FOV to a more natural (less zoomed in, if you will) angle, YOU GAIN MORE AT THE LEFT AND RIGHT. This just happens to be a 'side effect' of the wider FOV. Wider FOV, because the frickin screen is wider. Get it?
The people upset are also not asking to REMOVE the current implementation, but only to ALLOW them to view it in a way that is acceptable to them. The way PROMISED to them. How hard is it to give us a setting we can choose from? Even with an 'Experience will not be as the developer intended' warning before changing the setting, so as to not harm the 'artistic buffs' out there. Better they're able to play the game and lose some artistic framing than to not be able to play at all.
So, in short. Those who say the game is 'bugged' or 'incomplete'... no, you are wrong. 'Yes', the game does this 'on purpose'. Should it? Only the developer thinks so. And regardless, we should have the choice to choose otherwise, and not have to hack the game up to do so. This isn't us trying to take control or artistic expression away from the dev, it's simply us asking for the options we deserve.
Do you pay for a car, only to get it on the road and find you can't scoot your seat back? And then the dealer tells you that that distance is the distance intended by the car's designer? WTF? What if it's usable, but simply uncomfortable? What if it's not usable at all?? Would that fly? Holy shit, it only affects 10 percent of the population. Does that make it ok?
This is no different. Not at all.
Chill people. There have been extreme comment/accusations from both sides, but it doesn't change the complaint is a valid one to have.
Tephlon @ Aug 23rd 2007 2:42AM
Sorry, that last 'the' should be a 'that'
J @ Aug 23rd 2007 2:41AM
i know it has been said but...
some people don't understand the issue at all. 2k's decision to support widescreen the way they did is retarded. they are saying it was for artistic integrity but if this was the case the 4:3 MODE WOULD BE CROPPED.
16:9 was standardized for HD to show more than 4:3 to the sides. THIS IS A FACT. this is half assed the way 2k released this game. they cropped the widescreen mode, pure and simple. i can do the same with my tv. it's called ZOOM.
what they are saying now is "16 by what? oops. um uh uh well um hey you guys um we meant to do this because uh uh um well we wanted to keep the game as we envisioned it. yeah that's it." RETARDED.
Melting_Snowman @ Aug 23rd 2007 3:26AM
Ok, I think that I figured it out.
It seems the 'NO BLACK BARS!'-trolls of days of yore have finally moved into modern day. Back then it was a problem that the evil people letterboxed movies, preventing them from utilizing some of their hard earned screen estate. I mean, who cares what the director wanted, or if he had any artistic vision at all, or if some of the picture ended up being chopped off, the darn movies were not using the ENTIRE SCREEN!
Now it seems to be that 'GAMES HAVE TO SHOW MORE ON WIDESCREEN!'. Again regardless of any artistic intent or anything like that... because darn it, I have a wider TV, I paid lots of money for it, I deserve to see MORE!
Here's a question for you: do any of you asshats know what 'open matte' is? It is - mostly was - a particular way of making widescreen movies. Only this time the original frame is 4:3 (mostly due to technical details) and the theatrical version used a mask to achieve intended widescreen ratio. Make no mistake - it was meant to be widescreen, it was framed and shot as such (the cameras do have guides in the viewfinder, you know) and it really was shown as widescreen in theaters.
Thing is, some of these were converted for 4:3 video by removing the matte bars. Then the video version truly did show more. It also showed a vision certainly not intended by director, and often having some 'extras' in the picture, such as mic booms, light stands and other shit you need for shooting movies. Yet, even back then, there were people who actually sought these versions. Because... you guessed it, "they show more".
I can understand why people prefer wide plus instead of height minus, and I can understand that maybe, maybe it's possible to be bothered by a narrow FOV (I certainly haven't been, during the... what, twentysomething years I've gamed, but I believe that some people might be sensitive to this), but this particular case? The freaking devs said that the game was developed on mostly widescreen environment, it's no doubt aimed at mostly widescreen platform and they also said that their choice was intentional. So, as far as I can see, bitching should stop here - you are seeing the game as it was intended.
Geez, I bet that the "MORE!"(or MOAR?)-people who wanted black bars gone, who preferred open matte versions and who now want to see wider field of view with their widescreen system - *regardless of what was the devs' intent* - would also scream "MORE!" when given a choice of between eating small dose of poison and... well, MOAR poison.
Because more is better and we all know it.
GTMoogle @ Aug 23rd 2007 8:45AM
No really, and I can use some of the common arguments against you as well.
As everyone was saying over and over and over on the Cult of Rapture support forums, our eyes naturally see more like a widescreen monitor. Also, you're constantly turning left and right. So therefore, for the feel of the game, the horizontal fov is the most important.
The limited fov IS a design choice because it really does change the perception of the game. It's not a NICE change, it's not designed to make you most comfortable or give you the most information. It's supposed to make you feel claustrophobic, cramped, like you need to watch your back constantly, like a hundred fathoms of water are being barely held back from crashing in on you...
It IS a valid stylistic choice. It's unfortunate that some people are getting ill (the only games that have done that to me are turok and marathon (pc), and I'm playing bioshock at 2560x1600, so in theory I should be getting the worst of it... no problems). They can either use the user-made program or sit back farther from the screen. Alternatively they might actually be getting sea-sick from the other environmental effects and blur in the game. But it probably is how the dev's intended the game. I've tried the fov hack myself, and switching back and forth makes me think that the normal 90° vertical fov instead of 75° horizontal makes me feel too distant and removed, after having enjoyed my playthrough at the default.
Now, if I could finish the game in widescreen without it crashing...
GTMoogle @ Aug 23rd 2007 8:49AM
First playthrough of the demo, sorry. Just realized that made no sense without context.
MRKisThatKid @ Aug 23rd 2007 5:17AM
It has been known for some films to be made with 4/3 cameras but where the cinematography has been for a widescreen view, in effect they ignored the top and bottom. But when transferred to video in the old 4/3 VHS days they used the original 4/3 film. Comically, very occasionally things would pop up in the top of bottom that you weren't supposed to see such as boom-mics.
Edog Lost @ Aug 28th 2007 8:37PM
I play in widescreen and I think that the visibility is fine. I am sort of jelious that I could have more vertical visibility with the my 4:3 tv, but hey the game looks great.