http://gamingtrend.com
September 16, 2014, 10:00:36 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bioshock pc review...pc better  (Read 16171 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #80 on: August 21, 2007, 06:42:11 PM »

Hopefully they will have the widescreen issue resolved by the time I get the game and new video card.

Just for kicks, I should see how it runs on the X600  icon_smile
Logged
Greggy_D
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1093


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: August 21, 2007, 07:18:34 PM »

Quote from: wonderpug on August 21, 2007, 01:40:44 AM

I almost had to throw a dart to pick which Bioshock thread to post this in!

So I fired up the demo expecting it to run really poorly on my system.  OUCH.  It ran even worse than I expected.

Athlon 64 3500Mhz
GeForce 6800GT (256MB) (Today's BETA nvidia drivers)
2GB Ram
Audigy 2
Windows XP

Opening water scene was super choppy, but I figure I'll at least see how it runs when I get indoors.  Nuh uh.  I kept turning down the settings more and more.  Even at 1024*768, -everything- turned off or turned to low, including the texture resolution, and the framerate was unplayably low.  Practically a slideshow whenever I turned my head or if there was anything happening on the screen.



Did you load the special Nvidia Bioshock Beta drivers?  I hear they really speed things up.

Found here:  http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_downloads_rel70betadriver.html
Logged
Sarkus
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2593


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: August 21, 2007, 07:30:01 PM »

Quote from: Gratch on August 21, 2007, 06:25:52 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on August 21, 2007, 01:40:44 AM

I almost had to throw a dart to pick which Bioshock thread to post this in!

So I fired up the demo expecting it to run really poorly on my system.  OUCH.  It ran even worse than I expected.

Athlon 64 3500Mhz
GeForce 6800GT (256MB) (Today's BETA nvidia drivers)
2GB Ram
Audigy 2
Windows XP

Opening water scene was super choppy, but I figure I'll at least see how it runs when I get indoors.  Nuh uh.  I kept turning down the settings more and more.  Even at 1024*768, -everything- turned off or turned to low, including the texture resolution, and the framerate was unplayably low.  Practically a slideshow whenever I turned my head or if there was anything happening on the screen.

I know we've grown to expect minimum requirements to be meaningless, but this was just horrible--my system was even a nudge above the minimum requirements.  I didn't think to try to drop to 640*480, maybe that's what they had in mind for the min req?


Well that answers the "will it run on my system" question with a resounding no.   I've got pretty similar specs with less RAM (1 GB) and a better vid card (7800).  Since I'm completely hopeless playing FPS on consoles, it looks like I'm out of luck on Bioshock until I can afford a PC upgrade.   Which will be...well...never.   tear

I'd give the demo a try.  From what I'm reading around the net, a minimum system with something better than 6800 series cards seems to do pretty well on 1024 or 1280 resolutions.  It appears the game is more GPU dependent than CPU dependent.  My 6800 based minimum system ran ok but had noticeable framerate issues so I went with the 360 version.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.
Syndey: That's alright.  I have both.

- American Dad
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12480


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: August 21, 2007, 07:40:52 PM »

Quote from: Sarkus on August 21, 2007, 07:30:01 PM

Quote from: Gratch on August 21, 2007, 06:25:52 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on August 21, 2007, 01:40:44 AM

I almost had to throw a dart to pick which Bioshock thread to post this in!

So I fired up the demo expecting it to run really poorly on my system.  OUCH.  It ran even worse than I expected.

Athlon 64 3500Mhz
GeForce 6800GT (256MB) (Today's BETA nvidia drivers)
2GB Ram
Audigy 2
Windows XP

Opening water scene was super choppy, but I figure I'll at least see how it runs when I get indoors.  Nuh uh.  I kept turning down the settings more and more.  Even at 1024*768, -everything- turned off or turned to low, including the texture resolution, and the framerate was unplayably low.  Practically a slideshow whenever I turned my head or if there was anything happening on the screen.

I know we've grown to expect minimum requirements to be meaningless, but this was just horrible--my system was even a nudge above the minimum requirements.  I didn't think to try to drop to 640*480, maybe that's what they had in mind for the min req?


Well that answers the "will it run on my system" question with a resounding no.   I've got pretty similar specs with less RAM (1 GB) and a better vid card (7800).  Since I'm completely hopeless playing FPS on consoles, it looks like I'm out of luck on Bioshock until I can afford a PC upgrade.   Which will be...well...never.   tear

I'd give the demo a try.  From what I'm reading around the net, a minimum system with something better than 6800 series cards seems to do pretty well on 1024 or 1280 resolutions.  It appears the game is more GPU dependent than CPU dependent.  My 6800 based minimum system ran ok but had noticeable framerate issues so I went with the 360 version.

I set the demo to DL when I left this morning, so it will hopefully be done when I get home.  Was getting shit speed from every DL server (of course), so we'll see what happens.  Would love to play it on PC, and don't mind cranking down all the bells and whistles in order to make it doable.

Will report back later for those of us with long-in-the-tooth systems...  smile
Logged

“My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
EddieA
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6918


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: August 21, 2007, 08:14:16 PM »

Quote from: wonderpug on August 21, 2007, 01:40:44 AM

I almost had to throw a dart to pick which Bioshock thread to post this in!

So I fired up the demo expecting it to run really poorly on my system.  OUCH.  It ran even worse than I expected.

Athlon 64 3500Mhz
GeForce 6800GT (256MB) (Today's BETA nvidia drivers)
2GB Ram
Audigy 2
Windows XP

I have the same processor (if by 3500Mhz, you mean a 3500+), only 1 GB of RAM, and a 7600GS.  At 1024, with everything on high, the game is silky smooth in the water at the beginning, and only slightly less so once I get indoors.  I don't know how the video cards compare, but it should be running smoothly on yours.  Unless the video card is holding you back, there must be some other problem.
Logged

"Why did the chicken cross the Mobius strip?  To get to the same side."  - The Big Bang Theory
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11368


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: August 21, 2007, 08:21:06 PM »

Quote from: EddieA on August 21, 2007, 08:14:16 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on August 21, 2007, 01:40:44 AM

I almost had to throw a dart to pick which Bioshock thread to post this in!

So I fired up the demo expecting it to run really poorly on my system.  OUCH.  It ran even worse than I expected.

Athlon 64 3500Mhz
GeForce 6800GT (256MB) (Today's BETA nvidia drivers)
2GB Ram
Audigy 2
Windows XP

I have the same processor (if by 3500Mhz, you mean a 3500+), only 1 GB of RAM, and a 7600GS.  At 1024, with everything on high, the game is silky smooth in the water at the beginning, and only slightly less so once I get indoors.  I don't know how the video cards compare, but it should be running smoothly on yours.  Unless the video card is holding you back, there must be some other problem.

From the reports coming in here and there, everyone I've seen with similar specs that has AGP: unplayable.  Similar specs with PCI-E: runs pretty good.
Logged
Sarkus
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2593


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: August 21, 2007, 10:21:16 PM »

All the unplayable/not good enough reports I've seen have the 6800GT card as the common factor.  I'm not sure that they made those in anything but AGP, so in that sense you are right, but I also saw someone with a higher AGP card who said it worked pretty well.  I just think the 6800 can't quite handle it.  If it's all I had I'd play it because it is marginally playable for me, but with a 360 as an alternative there is no reason for me to accept the poor framerates.

It wouldn't surprise me if Gratch finds it's playable; a 7600 or 7800 are more powerfull than a 6800 after all.  It might just be enough, assuming you are running in 1024 or 1280 settings.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.
Syndey: That's alright.  I have both.

- American Dad
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12480


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: August 21, 2007, 10:49:22 PM »

Oops, I have a 7600 GT, not a 7800.  In fact, Eddie and I have the exact same specs.

I'm encouraged to hear it might run, less encouraged that I started my DL at 6:30 this morning from Gamershell, and as of nearly 5:00 this afternoon it still has 4 hours to go.  Seems to fluctuating wildly between around 200K and around 20K.  Might need to check somewhere else.
Logged

“My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11368


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: August 21, 2007, 10:52:03 PM »

I guess I was latching on to AGP as the cause because it didn't seem like the 7600s should be that much of an improvement over the 6800 GT: upping the resolution with all the bells and whistles turned on instead of struggling to just function at low res no bells.
Logged
Greggy_D
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1093


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: August 21, 2007, 11:00:06 PM »

Did you guys try the latest Nvidia Bioshock drivers?
Logged
leo8877
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 12657



View Profile
« Reply #90 on: August 21, 2007, 11:10:09 PM »

Anyone know how to take screenshots other than print screen and paste?
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11368


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: August 21, 2007, 11:15:50 PM »

Quote from: Greggy_D on August 21, 2007, 11:00:06 PM

Did you guys try the latest Nvidia Bioshock drivers?

Yup.
Logged
Daehawk
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11755



View Profile
« Reply #92 on: August 21, 2007, 11:40:03 PM »

I have a AGP 7800gs but have'nt had time to try the demo yet. I have it installed on Steam though. Im using old 94.24 drivers.
Logged

---------------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.

Check my trader rating. Im 22+ and zero negs. Trade with me! smile
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: August 22, 2007, 12:31:38 AM »

got it, installed it, will be back with a report after dinner is done.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Spiff
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 67


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: August 22, 2007, 12:52:22 AM »

I just posted this at OO also.

I went crazy and picked up the LE for the PC with the Big Daddy figurine. He's currently watching me with what I can only assume is morbid curiosity.

This game just drips with atmosphere. I'm playing at 1600x1200 with everything cranked to the max, and it's a smooth as butter. The voices, and ambient sounds, etc.. make this great so far. I haven't had any hiccups or stutters at all so far. This is exactly what I've been waiting for. I've gotten the heebie jeebie more than once, and I'm only about 1/2 hour into it. LOVE it!

The one hitch I did have was the damn activation. It told me I didn't have the right code (yeah, it's only printed on the freakin' back of the manual), so i sent an e-mail to the support, but right after I did that, I reentered the serial number for the 6th time and it went fine.

My system specs:

QX6700 Quad core
nForce 680i
2 gigs DDR2 1066 RAM
EVGA 8800GTX
150 gb Raptor
Vista w/ all updates
Logged

"I've read dozens of books about heroes and crooks, and I've learned much from both of their styles"
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12480


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: August 22, 2007, 02:37:38 AM »

It's been years since I've felt the need to download beta video drivers.  If I were so inclined, where would be a reputable source to get these "Bioshock drivers"?

EDIT:  Never mind.  Didn't realize the demo install took you directly to the download page.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2007, 02:54:40 AM by Gratch » Logged

“My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
stimpy
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 814


I'm makin a move!!


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: August 22, 2007, 02:56:55 AM »

AMD Athlon 64 3200+
2.0GHz
2000Mhz FSB
512 KB L2 Cache
2 gigs PC3200 200MHz DDR-SDRAM
Nvidia 7600 GT


Game runs like butta. Absolute butta, I tell ya.
Logged
JCC
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2368


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: August 22, 2007, 03:04:44 AM »

I ran and enjoyed the demo today on my rig. I wasn't thrilled with the performance... No slide shows, but it's not really getting out of the high teens or early 20s and for a quick paced game like this, I want a little bit better performance. I went from 1680x1050 and High down to 13??x768 and Medium to get to that level of performance. (I should note that I really didn't like the look of it on Medium nearly as much and went back to high...) I am likely to put off getting this for a while anyway (Metroid Prime 3 is higher priority for me) and then I'll see if I need a new vid card or do more detailed tweaking....(I did install the beta drivers)

Athlon 64 X2 (dual core) 3800
2G RAM
GeForce 7800 GT
Logged

-John

XBox Live ID: "JCC Davros"
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12480


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: August 22, 2007, 03:48:29 AM »

For those of us with lower-end systems, Bioshock is very playable.   Only very minor hiccups running at 1024 X 768 on high settings.  Turning the textures down to medium makes it run perfectly smooth.  Obviously missing out on the eye candy at that res, but it's good to know we can still play through without spending a ton of $$ to upgrade.  My rig:

Athlon 64 3500+
7600 GT
1 GB RAM

That being said, I'll probably skip it for now.  Definitely a cool atmosphere, but nothing about the demo really grabbed me and said "you have to play this game".  I'm sure I'll get to it eventually, but would rather put the money towards a PSP purchase right now.
Logged

“My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: August 22, 2007, 03:55:10 AM »

Apparently the Widescreen mode is messed on both the PC and 360.....
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Turtle
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9363



View Profile WWW
« Reply #100 on: August 22, 2007, 10:47:10 AM »

With my ATI x1950 the only problem I'm having are weird texture issues dealing with light halos and reflections, they get grainy in a grid like pattern.  I'm downloading the hotfix to see if this'll fix that issue.  Otherwise I'm running it flawlessly at 1680x1050 resolution and everything maxed out.

Full PC Specs:
AMD 64 X2 6000+ processor
ATI X1950 video card
2GB PC5300 RAM
Onboard sound
Logged
Tals
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2520


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: August 22, 2007, 11:40:42 AM »

Quote from: Gratch on August 22, 2007, 03:48:29 AM

For those of us with lower-end systems, Bioshock is very playable.   Only very minor hiccups running at 1024 X 768 on high settings.  Turning the textures down to medium makes it run perfectly smooth.  Obviously missing out on the eye candy at that res, but it's good to know we can still play through without spending a ton of $$ to upgrade.  My rig:

Athlon 64 3500+
7600 GT
1 GB RAM

That being said, I'll probably skip it for now.  Definitely a cool atmosphere, but nothing about the demo really grabbed me and said "you have to play this game".  I'm sure I'll get to it eventually, but would rather put the money towards a PSP purchase right now.

I have a very similar spec - 3200 instead of the 3500 and the game runs fine on high. I'm guessing the FPS is around 15 to 20 - don't want to check just in case its lower slywink But certainly playable.

That said whilst the demo absolutely blew me away in terms of atmosphere i've got the WIC demo coming out at the end of the week and i've just entereted a couple of well known beta programs that means very little playtime.

So if people are debating on specs the best advice is download the demo - the demo for the sheer wow factor is worth the download.

Tals
Logged

Currently Playing: Psyconauts, lol, wee raptr: Tals Steam: Talsworthy
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11368


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #102 on: August 22, 2007, 12:45:52 PM »

Quote from: CeeKay on August 22, 2007, 03:55:10 AM


I dunno, people are in a flipsy about that all over the place, but is it really an issue?  What if the wide-screen view is the intended viewing angle and they increased the vertical range for 4:3 monitors rather than putting up black bars?
Logged
Laner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4693


Badassfully


View Profile WWW
« Reply #103 on: August 22, 2007, 01:17:57 PM »

I don't see what the rhubarb is about either... sounds like the same approach used by movies shot on Super 35 film
Logged
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15933


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #104 on: August 22, 2007, 01:33:53 PM »

I also don't see the issue. So what if I can't see just a slight less on the vertical? It doesn't affect the gameplay at all in my mind.
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11368


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: August 22, 2007, 01:36:51 PM »

Now if they touted triple monitor support and the game gave you this view:



Ok, I guess I would probably join the complainers.
Logged
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #106 on: August 22, 2007, 01:40:49 PM »

Quote from: Destructor on August 22, 2007, 01:33:53 PM

I also don't see the issue. So what if I can't see just a slight less on the vertical? It doesn't affect the gameplay at all in my mind.

Actually you're seeing less horizontally too.  True widescreen support would basically have everything zoomed out a bit to give a wider field of view in all respects.  I haven't found it to be an issue so far in Bioshack but I definitely prefer it to be "correct" in most games because it gives better situational awareness.

Ken Levine has acknowledged the issue and stated that they were looking into it and the one of the Irrational programmers even bragged pre-release about how they would be using true widescreen and not some hack.  So the PC version, at least, might be fixed though I doubt they'll bother to patch the 360 version unless some other more signficant bugs crop up. 
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #107 on: August 22, 2007, 02:34:05 PM »

The problem is that you are getting less with widescreen, when you should be getting more.

The "solution" shouldn't be to play in 4:3, especially when the game engine they use can properly do 16:9 (and, as mentioned, there were already claims it would properly do 16:9).
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11368


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #108 on: August 22, 2007, 02:47:25 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on August 22, 2007, 02:34:05 PM

The problem is that you are getting less with widescreen, when you should be getting more.

But how do you know (well, before Kevin Levine acknowledged it as a problem) that the widescreen view isn't giving us the proper viewing angle, and the 4:3 view is giving us a distorted extra up/down view?  If the 4:3 view had black bars at the top and bottom instead of extra real estate, would anyone have an issue with the 16:9 viewing angle?

Laner's Super 35 example is great:



Are widescreen viewers getting screwed because 4:3 viewers get to see Dyson's knees?  No, the widescreen view is still the proper framing of the scene.  (And I realize in this example the widescreeners still do see more on the left and right, but I think the point still stands if you ignore the blue box and assume 4:3 viewers get to see the whole image.)
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #109 on: August 22, 2007, 02:56:10 PM »

Quote from: Kevin Grey on August 22, 2007, 01:40:49 PM

Ken Levine has acknowledged the issue and stated that they were looking into it and the one of the Irrational programmers even bragged pre-release about how they would be using true widescreen and not some hack.  So the PC version, at least, might be fixed though I doubt they'll bother to patch the 360 version unless some other more signficant bugs crop up. 

that pretty much sums up the issue in my mind.  the STALKER community had to fix it on their own, and with the programmers bragging about it it should be there.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #110 on: August 22, 2007, 03:05:42 PM »

Quote from: wonderpug on August 22, 2007, 02:47:25 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on August 22, 2007, 02:34:05 PM

The problem is that you are getting less with widescreen, when you should be getting more.

But how do you know (well, before Kevin Levine acknowledged it as a problem) that the widescreen view isn't giving us the proper viewing angle, and the 4:3 view is giving us a distorted extra up/down view?  If the 4:3 view had black bars at the top and bottom instead of extra real estate, would anyone have an issue with the 16:9 viewing angle?

Generally the solution for 4:3 users is cutting the sides off, not letterboxing the game.  It's a basic principle for gaming- widescreen displays should show you more, not less. 

The movie comparisons aren't necessarily accurate- this isn't a director and cinematographer framing a composition.  The actual composition of the frame in this case is determined by gamers.  Instead it's the developer deciding what the proper field of view for the game is.  If Irrational wants to state that they intentionally did this to increase the claustrophobic feel of the game then I don't think there would be as many complaints. 

Personally, I don't think it's really a big deal.  But since it reduces your situational awareness, it *does* effect gameplay and I can see it being a big deal for some. 
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11368


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #111 on: August 22, 2007, 03:18:26 PM »

But let's say they do release a patch expand the FOV for widescreen.  There is much rejoicing.  But they also accidentally change the 4:3 view to be as wide as the new widescreen view, but with some extra FOV on the top and bottom.

Is the widescreen view wrong again because the 4:3 view shows more?

I guess I just disagree with the statement that "widescreen displays should show you more, not less."  I think that widescreen displays should show you the correct FOV for the widescreen aspect ratio.  The 4:3 display can either chop off the sides or add to the top and bottom; it doesn't change the correctness of the widescreen.

In this case it's a dead debate since they've acknowledged it is indeed a problem, but before the side by side screenshot comparisons came out I don't remember anyone complaining that the widescreen FOV looked funky.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #112 on: August 22, 2007, 03:21:10 PM »

Quote from: wonderpug on August 22, 2007, 02:47:25 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on August 22, 2007, 02:34:05 PM

The problem is that you are getting less with widescreen, when you should be getting more.

But how do you know (well, before Kevin Levine acknowledged it as a problem) that the widescreen view isn't giving us the proper viewing angle, and the 4:3 view is giving us a distorted extra up/down view?  If the 4:3 view had black bars at the top and bottom instead of extra real estate, would anyone have an issue with the 16:9 viewing angle?

Laner's Super 35 example is great:



Are widescreen viewers getting screwed because 4:3 viewers get to see Dyson's knees?  No, the widescreen view is still the proper framing of the scene.  (And I realize in this example the widescreeners still do see more on the left and right, but I think the point still stands if you ignore the blue box and assume 4:3 viewers get to see the whole image.)

Except your picture is wrong.  You aren't getting the red box... you are getting the area in the blue box, having the top and bottom cut off where the red lines are, and stretched to fit the screen.  THAT'S the problem.
Logged
Ralph-Wiggum
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2613


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: August 22, 2007, 03:23:33 PM »

Someone has posted a fix on the widescreen gaming forums. I tried it out and it worked pretty well.
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11368


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #114 on: August 22, 2007, 03:28:28 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on August 22, 2007, 03:21:10 PM



Except your picture is wrong.  You aren't getting the red box... you are getting the area in the blue box, having the top and bottom cut off where the red lines are, and stretched to fit the screen.  THAT'S the problem.

How can you tell whether you're getting the red box or a cropped blue box?
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #115 on: August 22, 2007, 03:30:41 PM »

Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: August 22, 2007, 03:41:46 PM »

Quote from: Ralph-Wiggum on August 22, 2007, 03:23:33 PM

Someone has posted a fix on the widescreen gaming forums. I tried it out and it worked pretty well.

I don't suppose you could be nice and post a link?  pretty please with 151 on top?
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: August 22, 2007, 03:42:53 PM »

Quote from: wonderpug on August 22, 2007, 03:18:26 PM

I guess I just disagree with the statement that "widescreen displays should show you more, not less."  I think that widescreen displays should show you the correct FOV for the widescreen aspect ratio.  The 4:3 display can either chop off the sides or add to the top and bottom; it doesn't change the correctness of the widescreen.

The reason the side by side comparisons came out is indeed because the hardcore people who care about this (ie those over at Widescreen Gaming) did indeed notice it looked funky. 

And there is a general standard for FOV- 85-90 for 4:3 and a bit wider (duh) for widescreen.  It's usually pretty noticeable when games diverge from it too much.  Jedi Knight 2 initially made a lot of people kind of nauseous (including myself) because it defaulted to a much narrower FOV than most games. 

With Bioshock it looks like it's about 90 for both full screen and widescreen.  Proper implementation means that each setting (4:3 and 16:9) should have it's own native FOV.  To use your above example, if they "opened up the matte" after implementing the proper widescreen FOV, then it would be incorrect for 4:3 gamers at that point with an excessive FOV for 4:3 gaming. 
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11368


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: August 22, 2007, 03:45:35 PM »

Re: unbreakable

Yes yes, we've seen the screenshot.

How do I make this more clear?

How can you tell whether the 16:9 is a cropped 4:3 view, or the 4:3 view is a letterboxed 16:9 view with extra vertical FOV instead of black bars?

If you can remember getting drunk in Everquest, you develop tunnel vision.  Definitely too much FOV for the screen.  Crop the sides and stretch too much, that's too little FOV.  There's an amount of peripheral vision that the game developers decide to give us.  It should look natural to our eyes.  How do we know that the FOV Bioshock gave us for 16:9 is not correct.  (Again, before they confirmed it to be so.)

As more and more people have widescreen TVs and computer monitors, more and more games are going to be developed for 16:9 first and adapted for 4:3 second.  Some games already force the 4:3 view to have black bars on the top and bottom.  If instead of using black bars they increased the vertical view on 4:3, it would not suddenly make the 16:9 view wrong.
Logged
Ralph-Wiggum
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2613


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: August 22, 2007, 03:49:50 PM »

Quote from: CeeKay on August 22, 2007, 03:41:46 PM

Quote from: Ralph-Wiggum on August 22, 2007, 03:23:33 PM

Someone has posted a fix on the widescreen gaming forums. I tried it out and it worked pretty well.

I don't suppose you could be nice and post a link?  pretty please with 151 on top?

Lazy butt.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.169 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.05s, 2q)