Tamlin

Then one day, a gallery asked Da Vinci for an exact copy of the painting to display in their town. However, they only had square frames to put it in. Da Vinci said, "Well, I don't think it's fair to cut off part of the picture to fit the square frame." So instead, he painted more landscape in the background, extending the picture so it would fit a square frame.

Then a visitor from another town saw the Mona Lisa in a square frame, and was angry. He complained to Da Vinci, saying, "Why should people in that town get a better painting than we do? They have more picture than we do!"

Da Vinci responded, "Their painting is not better. I always intended the painting to be the way you see it, in a rectangular frame. I wanted to be nice to the people with a square frame, and I didn't want to cut off any of my original picture, so I added some extra. But don't worry, that extra part isn't part of my original design. The rectangular painting is how I originally intended it."

Then the man said, "I don't care what you say; to me, the rectangular one looks like a cropped version of the square one. I want the square one with more picture! I refuse to buy the rectangular painting!"

Da Vinci looked on the man with pity and said, "You, sir, are an idiot."

The End

abates17

If designed for 4:3 and simply extend the FOV horizontally for 16:9, the player may see more than they should, changing the closed in feel. I would think this is quite important in creating the feeling they intended. Conversely designing the game for 16:9, in 4:3 you would either have to crop horizontally , making the player blind to what you would see in 16:9 or deal with with black bars.

I'm sure they looked at all options for this and decided vertically cropping for 16:9 gave the most consistent experience and feel for both aspect ratios.

In sure made all you widescreen folks mad though. Just play the game and forget about it. You'd be none the wiser without seeing it or hearing about it in 4:3. You can try play 4:3 aspect on your widescreen if you monitor supports it.

kunio

lestat730

Android8675

If you want a better game, better get started on developing one.

le_loki_noir

Wolfkin

Shut the fuck up you whiny little bitches, and the fools here trying to sound elitist because they have a TV that is old as hell and in 4:3. you don't win, you never will.

Amsterdaam - KEEP SMILING

Seriously... it really looks like a kindergarden fight, who cares I don't *always* see the tatoo of the player... or if I miss 1/10th of the column in front of me... hell, just look up !

O well, if it makes some people happy, fine for them, but if I would be one of Irrational's dev, I would laugh at you and go to bed for a good sleep.

hexode

Sloopydrew

MadMinstrel

provoko

siamgx

WebScud

Seriously, though, I was up in arms about it yesterday, but after playing, it honestly isn't an issue, guys.

Nate128

I think the gaming community is making mountains out of molehills on this one (always wanted to use that phrase.)

PurpleMonkey

ZombieFlanders

Sixdust

Actually, there is a "god-given purpose" to widescreen.

It's called the human eye, and it's naturally rectangular field of view.

And you're completely wrong about that whole, "many movies are filmed in 4:3" argument, too. Sure many cinematographers (not directors, though they'd like you to think that) have more frame space put to film than what actually winds up on screen wherein you'll see boom mic's and lighting gear and other things not meant to be seen. But it isn't a 4:3 image.

4:3 is a broadcast television aspect ratio, which is usually dictated by scribe lines in the camera's eyepiece (or represented on a monitor). The filmmakers can see what the aspect ration will be in multiple output ratio's via these lines, and frame for whatever their aspect ratio of choice actually is by virtue of their use.

Long story short- whenever you buy a "fullscreen" DVD you are getting inherently less image on your TV screen, HD or not. It might not be as big on your TV, but "widescreen" DVD's always have more image, unless they're old like Casablanca and got butchered in some shoddy redistribution.

So, if you want the biggest image and the totality of the director's "vision", you have to buy widescreen. Fullscreen is for people who hate black bars and don't care about much else...

stranger

I never said "god-given" anything. 2k can implement it any way they want, but then they should've at least been straightforward about it and know that they're basically going against the "standard" implementation of widescreen games.

The movie analogy only goes so far, as well. In a game, there's no "intended view", just an environment and a movable "window" to how you view it. So the question with 2 different aspect ratios to work for is whether you want black bars in one of them, and if not, which one sees more. My only point is that widescreen is typically used for exactly what it means... a wider view, not necessarily a shorter one.

Like I said... it doesn't matter that much. The game is great as it is.

-Jeff
[alinktothefuture.com]

leshrac55

You nerdwad (and every other dork who doesn't get it / isn't listening). If you paid attention or knew what you were talking about you'd notice that the developers took a given FOV (or focal length if that makes it easier for you) that provided the lateral vision they wanted. For the 4:3 they kept the focal length the same and simply re-cropped, making the frame taller. Unlike what all you whiners are bitching about, this actually is to the 4:3 players benefit - if they had cropped left and right, the already compressed view would lose even more lateral visibility.
It's easy: peripheral vision was more important than vertical visibility.

housewarmer

chinesedentist

UncleScrotar

Darkest Daze

Mii

"TWONINE AT 01:43 PM
This is exactly how it works in the film world people.

Shots are composed for 1.85 or 2.40 aspect ratios (widescreen) but the whole 1.316 frame can be used when transferred for standard video display. Directors usually prefer it to pan & scan or cropping, and I assume bioshock's director made the same decision."

+++++++++++++++++++++

this is exactly the case. a surprisingly large of movies are filmed in 4:3, ever seen the monitors they view the dailies on in DVD extras and stuff? noticed that usually they're 4:3 screens with a 16:9 mask drawn on? this is why. the first example of this that springs to mind is terminator 2, if you have it handy on one of those dual side DVDs, watch both 4:3 and 16:9 versions, 4:3 isn't cropped, 16:9 is.

talk about an amusingly literal example of "never mind the quality, check the width." widescreen is not just about OMG MORE PIXELS

Dan0rz

Pan-n-scan. Which some schools of though would tell you is worse than cropping.

Personally, after spending my entire yesterday with Bioshock I think it's more of a performance related call from Irrational (I refuse to call them 2K Whatever) than anything else.

The viewspace for the game feels almost "zoomed in" in 16:9, if you will. Everything within the players normal field of view seems just fine, until you're close to any object in the game. Once you're near a door or a window or whatever object, suddenly the game feels claustrophobic, objects feel too large or too small in comparison to whatever I'm holding (or just the size of the character's hand). The splicers retain a decent scale, but environmental objects seem disproportionately larger than they should be at near distance....

Anyone else notice this?

I could be totally on crack, but my guess is that the perspective might help the game keep a consistent frame rate by subtly limiting the player's field of view, especially when it's rendering all of that detail in the environments for HD output.

A better way to explain it would be that the environments from a distance are very three dimensional. There's a sense of depth to what you're looking at. Up close the environment seems flattened, it's depth of field and sense of peripheral view is lacking compared to other shooters- at least up close.

If I'm correct then it would make sense that a SD 4:3 display could handle a larger viewable space on the screen, as the refresh rate of the display would be significantly less. If I'm wrong then I have to say that they're choice in point-of-view placement is just plain bad, at least in 16:9. I feel like I'm playing the entire game with a pistol next to my cheek.

I am not a professional. I do not make games for a living. So I have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm just taking a guess here and willing to admit that I'm totally wrong and/or an idiot.

I'm just wondering if anyone else got the same feeling after playing the game for a while.

Not really complaining, just talking. If this is the worst thing anyone can say about Bioshock, we're all very lucky gamers right now to be complaining about such a trifling detail. Any thoughts?

stranger

Tzepish

allabouttrust

Of all the things that make this game a masterpiece, it's really sad that some people still find something to make a fuss about. Anything that can be sensationalized will be, I suppose.

Anyway, I personal thanks out to Irrational for making one heck of a game. It's revived my love for the genre.

UglyZombie

David Fincher was a big proponent of being aware of both widescreen and standard audiences. He wanted his film to look the way he intended it to on any screen, so he took great pains to make sure that even though his original vision was for widescreen, that it would still be presentable and acceptable in standard without any loss in composition or content. I believe there's an explanation of it in the Panic Room extras. My details could be fuzzy, but that's the gist of it.

alienate

Schaschi

Don't take this personally.

Jooptang

Spacejaguar

klausvalka

Again, what's the big deal here? The ONLY thing getting cropped is the arm. Everything else has not been removed, and so has not been cropped from the game.

klausvalka

You also seem to be assuming all 4;3 TVs are SD. Which also isn't the case. There are 4:3 HDTVs.

Zim

"If they intended the game to be seen as it is in Widescreen, why are about 1/2 of the hand models cut off on screen?"

So it doesn't get in the way? You don't want to block a lot of the view with the character's hand, just show enough to convey what he is carrying. Why did they have an arm model that extends beyond the frame? Because if you actually look at the game, instead of just selected screen shots, you will discover that the arm moves. Even in widescreen, there are many occasions when you see quite a bit of the arm.

trrll

No, there is no god-given "purpose" to wide screen. It's a different shape, that's all. A movie director may use it to show more on the sides without making things too small on the screen--or he may use it to show less, showing a narrow horizontal strip of an image to dramatic effect. Many movies are filmed in 4:3, and the stuff that is cut out is not necessarily booms and the like. Buyers of the fullscreen version actually do get to see more "stuff" than widescreen owners of moviegoers. Which is better? Well, if seeing more stuff is your highest goal, then you should buy the fullscreen version. If you are more interested in enjoying the movie as envisioned by the director, then you probably want the widescreen version, because the director was probably thinking mainly of movie screen proportions when he composed the shot.

trrll

Yes, but I'm not saying that pulling the FOV all the way back would be better. Just not so in close. The FOV looks very low, somewhere around 70. Which is fine for some games, Halo has a tight FOV. But when you don't add any viewing area to the sides in 16x9, it doesn't look right.

I understand the explanation for it, but it's just weird. I mean, the 4:3 mode displays more viewing area than 16x9.

Madeira

Read up on the history of widescreen and you'll realize that it's about artistic choice, not "realism". We have widescreen TV's because it better fits in with what movies use as an aspect ratio.

maxsunset

RonJeremy4Pres

Dark_Cheetah

This is exactly right, which is why it's disappointing.

The Bioshock developers claim that it was a design design decision to basically have that amount of width in the game on a widescreen display. If they'd cropped that for the 4:3 display, the hands would've been outside the frame of the screen probably, so they just decided to push the viewing area out vertically instead on 4:3 displays.

It's not that this isn't a valid choice... imagine if Widescreen had been created first and then suddenly someone came out with "Tallscreen" technology. Now you can see more vertically! Amazing!

That's just not the way things went, though. Widescreen was intended to show more picture... in effect extending the "standard" picture. Unlike a movie where someone may film in 4:3 intending to cut it down to 16x9, cutting out various movie set stuff like boom mics and such, (as Kubrick did), a 3d game world doesn't have things outside the frame that need to be covered up. So, given the fact that 16x9 is the "new" and "preferred" technology, it makes sense that it would display more than the 4:3 mode. The fact that the 4:3 mode displays more makes it clear to me that the developers apparently don't "get" that.

That being said, the developers "got" a lot of other things, making an awesome game. I don't think the experience is significantly altered because of the way widescreen is supported.

-Jeff
[alinktothefuture.com]

leshrac55

I remember seeing one of the Akira Kurosawa movies in 1.85:1, on my old 4:3 tv...

In one scene there were 2 samurai one on each corner of the screen, talking to each other.

No resize, no zoom funcion, nothing, my dvd player auto adjusting the screen with black bars on top and bottom, BUT...

even so the entire scene I just saw grass.

Wyld

[www.widescreengamingforum.com]

Racer_S, game hacking/tweaking guru whose made FOV patches for various other games, has made one for Bioshock which allows you to set the FOV. He and plenty of others who are qualified to do so confirmed the base FOV is 75.

Furthermore if you set the FOV to 75 with his patch, it results in no change, so the game's default FOV must be 75 degrees.

However, if you play a ton of shooters and are used to tweaking FOVs you get an eye for it. Most people guessed the FOV was 75 long before it was confirmed.

Stevedroid

I'd be willing to bet this change to widescreen came as an easy way to ensure both widescreen and 4:3 had similar performance on the Xbox 360.

Funny to hear justification as to why Widescreen gets less, when the whole purpose of having such a display is to provide a larger, more realistic view of the game world.

fall

Toasticus

thinred

Pretty much every other first person game on the market designed with widescreen in mind use 65-90 degrees for 4:3 displays and open up to 90-120 degrees when run on 16:9 displays.

Regardless of cropping problem (or supposed lack thereof), the FOV is much smaller than other games in the genre. A smaller FOV results in a more zoomed in view of the game world that's more sensitive to movement.

Stevedroid

This is one of the few people that really understands the issue. If they wide screen is a 120ish degree horizontal FOV and 90 degree vertical FOV...and the standard is a 120degree horizontal field of view and a 120 degree vertical FOV, it is the 4:3 that is, in fact distorted. This is not a cop out answer. Try to understand the technology before you blow this guy off.

VendettaUF

Don't you get it people? It WAS spec for 16x9! That is the "framing" originally intended for the game. You are getting the intended (superior) experience even though you cant see as much as a 4x3 display does. It is neither cropped or zoomed. The game is rendering a 720p native. The comparisons to movies DONT apply to games. This was the artistic intent.

It's like the people who bitch about The Shining not being widescreen. Guess what? Kubrick WANTED it to be 4:3. So he cropped didn't shoot it with an anamorphic lens (to squish the frame for widescreen use) in the first place.

Look. If you want to see the "missing" areas, move the goddamn camera up!! It's a videogame, not a movie. YOU control the field of view.

Sure. They could have put a wider-angle lens on and made everything look like a fucking skate video, which annoys me to no end in a lot of FPS games (and adds to the motion sickness effect), but this is a game set in an underwater city, it's SUPPOSED to be claustrophobic!

Why dont we all focus on how awesome the game is for once instead of pining for things to bitch about.

maxsunset

Then why does my 360 version play in a letterbox with black bars at the top and bottom? The PC demo didnt, and they are playing in the same resolution on the same monitor...

Murrytmds

javajoe96

So what makes one FOV right and the other wrong? Geometrically, the FOV depends upon where the viewer's eye and the "window" that corresponds to the screen are in the virtual space of the game. If you are at a distance from your screen such that the screen subtends the same number of degrees in your visual field as the FOV of the game, then the perspective will be perfect, as if the screen were a literal window onto the action, which makes for a very immersive experience. The FOV in Bioshock is pretty close to this for typical viewing distances. If the game FOV is greater than the fraction of your visual field occupied by the screen, then everything on the screen looks "shrunken" and less dramatic. If the game FOV is less than that occupied by the screen, then things in the game will seem "larger than life."

The other aspect of FOV is the level of suspense. One could easily create a game with a 360 degree field of view so that nothing could ever catch you by surprise, but it wouldn't be nearly as suspenseful to play as a game in which you have to be constantly looking around to make sure that something isn't creeping up on you. So the choice of FOV influences such things as how many enemies there are and where they come from. Alter the FOV without changing everything else and the game will be out of balance, easier or harder than intended, and probably not as enjoyable to play. And of course, there are also the limitations of the display. A wider FOV means spreading more geometry across the same number of pixels, which inevitably means that objects and textures on the screen will be shown at lower resolution.

The point I'm making is that "seeing more stuff" is not necessarily the acme of game design. There is no one answer that is right for every game. The FOV that is best for Doom may not be best for Bioshock. And nobody who has not played a good way through a game is really in a position to critique the developer's choice. But we do know that the developers have spent considerable time thinking about it and play testing, so if we have any respect for them at all, we should give their choice of FOV a fair chance, rather than demand that they patch it to make it more like some other game.

trrll

A wide screen version would look better and wouldn't get me motion sick.

inajeep

baberg

DaveKap

You widescreen complainers are like that first man. Rather than enjoying what a truly great game you have in front of you, you're complaining that the developers actually CARED about people with fullscreen displays.

jeresun

I love Irrational but my opinion of them has slipped slightly.

jobble

Tull

More peripheral vision does not always equate to being more immersive. If it was that simple then everyone would set their FOV to 180 degrees to maximize immersion.

Bioshock, as a game, is absolutely about feeling claustrophobic. It's all about being worried about what might be behind you, or next to you.

Exactly what impact does the FOV of the 4:3 view have on the FOV of the widescreen view?

Can you tell me what the FOV of the widescreen view is?

Toasticus

Snukadaman_

Cropped isn't the issue, it's the FOV being extremely tight.

Tzepish

Madeira

So "When you extend the vertical space for 4:3 you ARE giving widescreen users a cropped version"?

So if they created the widescreen display first, and then later decided on the display for 4:3 monitors, does that mean that the image on widescreen was originally true widescreen, but when they created the 4:3 version that same image was somehow transformed into "cropped" widescreen?

trrll

Lanky Bugger

Spiderbait

Big Gray.

trrll

chinesedentist

you can *look in any direction*

do so, and the problem goes away

threv

Toasticus

Madeira

If you're getting overly upset over something like this, I'd say a little perspective on the quality of the game (or reality as a whole) would go a long way. Saying you won't buy/play it because of this? Fine. Go punish yourself for your misplaced idealism... why should everyone else care how much of a martyr you think you are? You'll certainly be teaching 2K a lesson by sitting alone in a room, pissed off with nothing to play. That'll teach 'em.

Sheesh.

dv8godd

Snukadaman_

It makes sense from a design standpoint. In a First Person Shooter, most of the action is taking place horizontally: Enemies and hazards and hazards are more likely to come from the sides than from above or below. The designers were faced with a choice: Did they want to screw the 4:3 user 9 times out of 10 by cropping his horizontal vision, or screw the widescreen user 1 time out of 10 by cropping his vertical vision?

I think they made the right decision. Your Widscreen HDTV still displays the game sharper and at a higher quality than my 4:3 SDTV. You still benefit from your HD technology. Your game is unhindered the majority of the time when compared to a normal TV. All it means is that us 4:3 users see a little more floor and ceiling.

God, the Internet is made of fail.

Lanky Bugger

ARPRINCE

Toasticus

Madeira

Andrewteix

Everyone except widescreen tv owners. They didn't want to piss of 4:3 tv owners but they are fine with pissing off widescreen tv owners.

I love bioshock but this is just BS (the other one, not bioshock). If any other game did this everyone would be after the developers blood.

Bioshock isn't in widescreen. That implies you have a wider field of view. On a widescreen TV you are just playing it in stumpy-o-vision.

Personally I think they just couldn't keep the framerate stable while having that much more on screen. I wish they would just come out and say it.

Zim

DaveKap

weirdkidinabox

Lol, nice try covering it up.

zleilndka

TXM DOT COM

Considering most of the audience for this game, It's a pretty good dodged response.

Scuba Steve

VSpeck

TXM DOT COM

Heyyou27

Personally though the black bars at the top and bottom of the PS2 version of say RE4 didn't really bother me...though why they were focusing so much on wide-screen in the LAST gen is beyond me...

Baramos

Madeira

TXM DOT COM

Be careful. There doesn't seem to be much room for logic on this topic. Retarded overreactions seem to be par for the course.

Soygen

Madeira

16x9 was the lead design aspect ratio. It is, and always has been, the primarily intended experience of the game.

Standard definition is still secondary. Their solution for adapting the display for people playing in 4:3 was to increase the vertical FOV, instead of decreasing the horizontal FOV.

THEY ARE NOT CATERING TO THE 4:3 VIEWING RATIO. The "extra" that you see in 4:3 ratio is just that, extra. It is not the primarily intended viewing experience. It is simply extraneous. That sleeve that people think you're supposed to see when you're walking around? Yeah, you do see it; when you swing the weapon. Are you armchair designers now going to go around telling the developers how they intended the game to be seen? Jesus Christ.

They did not screw over widescreen owners here! I have a fairly expensive widescreen TV that I play Bioshock on and I am not the least bit upset at this fully intentional, fully justifiable design decision.

I am, however, EXTREMELY upset that people are continuing to spread this misinformation. Now there are tons of people who think that they're missing out if they don't play the game in 4:3, which could not be further from the truth.

Toasticus

Termisk8er

firesign

EmTeeZ

It makes perfect sense that they might try to balance the displayed image between the two so that if you were to switch between a normal 4:3 display and a 16:10 display it wouldn't feel like a completely different experience. The problem is that people have adopted the "widescreen shows more horizontal image detail" because of video cropping for broadcast 4:3 displays and games that added widescreen onto their games originally intended for 4:3.

So it's a mostly psychological phenomena that people think they aren't getting the most out of their widescreen display, because of the comparison of how they handled it in 16:10 versus 4:3. If they gimped 4:3 a bit, it might have made 16:10 stand out a bit more in comparison and it's possible people wouldn't be hurt that their investment resulted in a similar experience to 4:3.

On the other hand, there is peripheral vision to take into account, and 4:3 displays are not wide enough to really give a decent sense of peripheral vision (without overblowing the fov), where-as a widescreen display is more fit for filling that void. If the fov doesn't aesthetically match the aspect ratio, the eyes and mind attempting to immerse themselves in the 2D screen displaying a 3D world may feel like something is missing. If it's only off by a bit, you may not be able to pinpoint what it is that's bugging you, if it's off by a lot, it's obvious.

In case you aren't aware, the FOV adds sort of a zoom factor, and in displaying the image on screen, when you rotate it might look like the image near the edges of the screen are shifting faster, like a fish eye type effect. As I mentioned earlier, if you wanted to get a good feel of peripheral vision on a 4:3 display, you might have to overblow the FOV and you'd get that fish-eye effect, like in aliens vs predator when you were an alien. In most games, it's distracting. On a widescreen display, that same FOV, tamed down maybe a bit, can feel more natural.

Also, people keep referring to 16:10 as 16:9. 16:9 is a video standard ratio primarily used for video resolutions, while 16:10 is the computer display standard. Not to pick on it too much, it's reasonably accurate to say 16:9, it's damn close, just thought I'd mention it.

[en.wikipedia.org]

CMay

Devs have 3 ways of doing this:

1. The way STALKER and BioShock do it, which is the shitty way of cutting off the top and bottom. There's a FOV hack for STALKER though (unofficial but it works great). Or the way the Halo 3 beta did it, by cutting the sides off for people on 4:3... not wise either.

2. Forcing widescreen. The best option.

3. Dynamic FOV. If it's widescreen, show the standard 110 degree wide angle. If it's 4:3, show 90.

Seriously, 2K, this is some bullshit.

redgopher

dphrygian

As to the proliferation of wide screen, I know that the console/TV space is much different, but on PC, the Valve hardware survey summary shows 83.64% of Steam survey respondents have a 4:3 aspect ratio display.

People need to quit whining and go play one of the greatest games ever made.

xJake

Mezodon

They painstakingly craft this beautiful, intricate, wonderfully original and well playing game....

then you have a small # of Whiners bitching about something that doesn't even matter.

PLAY THE GAME...HAVE FUN!! It does not detract from the game in any way.......

GoonieGooGoo

Yeah, it's the future of displays, and the point is that the gamers get to see more. However, the amount of ruckus over this is just ridiculous. Most people (at least, definitely most people I know) don't have widescreen TVs, they have 4:3 TVs because they bought them years ago and they don't have money to spend on an expensive TV. I can't believe that for one game, widescreen displayers have to go so absolutely nutso over the issue like they've been personally wronged. I played TMNT 2 for the NES on a black and white TV, and I loved every minute of it. Just let it go- it's a sleeve.

EmTeeZ

I find this totally unacceptable, I mean how did they screw this up this badly? I guess my 1080p HDtv is going to waste, thanks a lot guys.

ShadowsofHeat

Guizzy

Each game has its own esthetic and gameplay design goals. Bioshock is not HL2. A top designer will consider each game separately and come up with the field of view that best enhances the game experience for that particular game.

I suspect that the developers intended for the FOV to be a bit claustrophobic. For me, it works, at least as far as the demo goes.

trrll

Widescreen isnt cropped... SD is extended in the verticle. So what? People who have widescreen are upset about this because they dont have "more" viewable area?!

This reminds me of two kids fighting over two lolipops and the one kids argument is that "his was supposed to be better".

I dont know. Maybe you guys all see something that I dont....

asphix20

"The game will render in full 16:9 aspect ratio, with no letterboxing"

(it does) and,

"You will see more in widescreen. We use a different projection matrix; there is no squashing or stretching of the image involved."

and this is true, too. The picture is not distorted, and you see more pixels--more resolution, more detail--than benighted 4:3 TV owners, who find that the key "action zone" of the game is effectively letterboxed, reduced in size and resolution, and their only compensation is that they get to see more stuff that doesn't matter, like the ceiling, floor, and their character's wrist. I suppose that it's better than black bars, but...

Despite all of the complaints, I expect that very few widescreen owners will actually prefer to play the game in the SD view. It just looks better in widescreen. As it should.

trrll

For the standard def version, they've just chosen to add viewing area that you don't need rather than removing some of the area the game was actually designed to have.

This is exactly how Pixar creates the full screen versions of their films for Disney, too. Do people who buy the widescreen version whine that fullscreen watchers are getting "more movie"? No... because the widescreen version is the real version, the one that follows the director's cinematic vision and framing decisions. All the standard def version adds is filler. The same is true with Bioshock.

rikkestoban

The distinction between "cropping" the widescreen view and "expanding" to 4:3 is actually pretty significant. If the display they'd designed around was 4:3, and they'd tuned the behaviour of that, and then cropped the top and bottom off, I'd be pissed, because the experience would be different. But it's not. The game was designed with the widescreen aspect ratio and FOV. That you can see more vertically with 4:3 is a *better decision* from a development perspective, and for the end-user experience.

Deal with it.

helava

...we decided to crop the FOV for 16:9 displays and make those people mad instead!

Brilliant!

skullivan

In all seriousness, the maturity level on both sides of the debate have fallen into sub-junior high levels. It's okay to have an opinion one way or another. To start lambasting others, or making generalized insults to groups of people that differ in opinion doesn't help anybodies cause.

thumbuki

I saw the 4:3 Tv companies bribed them with the biggest square TV's ever!

AvocadoOverboard

jerrt

Almost 50% answered widescreen. I was impressed.

kidko

neojam

SirPimps

PlaidNinja

Hell.. can Bioshock do that:?
[strlen.com]

Tei

Incidentally, this is similar to how Stanley Kubrick framed many of his movies. He didn't want the video/tv release to be cropped, so he would film a 4:3 picture framed in a way that the widescreen portion in the middle of the frame still carried the intent of the shot. Then, he would crop the picture to that widescreen ratio for the theatrical release. The video market would get the full, uncropped shot, but it's hard to say that the theatrical viewers were getting screwed, since the thing was framed with them in mind.

beukema

JustinS

Guizzy

3inst3in

noamjamski

haha yeh exactly , I cant believe people could believe that bullshit when there are fully rendered wrists that you cant even see in widescreen.
Still..looking forward to playing it tommorow.

SamuelRPGstory

Suga-Cyan

chenry

You'd think Kotaku readers would be the gamers who would get this kind of issue.

Madeira

Take a look at these Half-Life 2 shots to see the way it should be done: [www.widescreengamingforum.com]

The BioShock comparison shots just look ridiculous by comparison.

Mezodon

Absolutely brilliant. Have to say I've never seen an excuse like it. The PR guy who came up with that deserves a raise. Seriously.

Tenth

yawn_worksucks

However, based on the FOV they have chosen, it does feel like your character is particularly short. Its almost like you're a dwarf in the game.

It definitely does make things feel more claustrophobic, though.

chinesedentist

HfAsianInvasion

Tzepish

Exactly, people are too hung up comparing it to widescreen in film or TV - it's just not the same. It's not like we're playing the game without moving or changing the view. Nothing is cropped. Look up.

J.A.

I don't really think it matters. They made the game for widescreen and it rocks in any view.

sand0789

Mr Fortitude

Unfortunately, I'm going to be nagged by this stupid little issue while playing this otherwise amazing game. From the couple hours I've played so far I'm already completely in love with the it so I won't have a problem getting over this issue. I just do not like the official response from the developer on this problem. Oh well, what can you do...

FelixLighter

afroabdul